"SANCTUARY CITY," Councilman Alfred E. Vellucci labelled Cambridge last week, referring to its national reputation for sheltering the homeless. But while the city boasts of benevolence, the reality is largely a sanctuary of cold doorways, heating vents, and park benches.

Ironically, current shelter space in Cambridge is not limited by lack of funds or volunteers, but by a city ordinance which limits the number of community residences in Cambridge neighborhoods. Vellucci's comment--made at a recent meeting of the Cambridge City Council to discuss changing the law--sets a standard to which the city should aspire, but unfortunately one which it does not meet now.

Under the current ordinance, only one shelter is permitted per 5000 Cambridge residents. Under the proposed ordinance, neighborhoods would be assessed in terms of number of beds rather than number of facilities. The number of beds allowed in each neighborhood would increase from four to 10 per 100 residents. A final provision in the proposal is the possibility of a special permit, enabling community residences to be built in neighborhoods that have already reached the density limit.

Currently there are only three shelters in Cambridge--clearly not enough space for the Cambridge homeless community. In the basement of the Faith Lutheran Church, a Harvard student-staffed temporary shelter housing 23 guests nightly, sometimes has had to turn away up to a dozen people each night for lack of space. After a hot meal and a cup of coffee, the homeless return to sub-freezing temperatures on the streets.

Clearly, the current situation is inadequate for the city's homeless. The new ordinance offers both a more practical and probable means of creating new community residences for the homeless.

Under the proposed ordinance, a neighborhood that previously could build only one facility per 5000 residents would be able to absorb a greater number of people, in several smaller group homes. Smaller community residences have two important advantages: they provide a more personal and supportive environment for guests, and they are less conspicuous in a neighborhood.

NOT SUPRISINGLY, most of the opposition to the new ordinance stems not from a disregard for the homeless, but from the fear--expressed by residents--that the relocated homeless would be concentrated in lower-cost housing areas like East and North Cambridge. Residents and councilmen from these areas forsee their neighborhoods becoming supersaturated, while the wealthier areas of West Cambridge remain untouched.

Neighborhood concern is understandable. It is one thing to plan community residences in someone else's neighborhood, and quite another to house the homeless in one's own community.

There is no question that the city council should work on better distributing community residences. Perhaps residents could urge the city to purchase West Cambridge residences by eminent domain or perhaps by convincing local churches to donate their facilities for temporary shelters. Concerned residents should work toward equal distribution of shelters, but not at the expense of the homeless.

As with many sensitive issues, community acceptance will not come without community education. Much of the tremendous fear, distrust and hostility towards the homeless is the result of misconceptions. It would be romanticizing--not to say patronizing--to portray the homeless as a meek group of people. But violence, both verbal and physical, does not characterize the homeless community.

At the recent council meeting, shelter staff and Cambridge residents testified that the homeless community is not a harmful one. As one woman--who advocated a shelter in her East Cambridge neighborhood, near the gourmet food store Bread and Circus--put it, "I've never been harrassed, threatened, or even intimidated by a homeless person, but I have been harrassed, threatened and intimidated by Bread and Circus customers."

The proposed ordinance is only a first step toward turning Councilman Vellucci's epithet into a reality, toward making Cambridge a sanctuary city. Though temporary shelters are a bandaid on the homeless problem, they are necessary. Unfortunately, human concern often turns from a moral imperative regarding the plight of the homeless in someone else's neighborhood, to a personal threat and inconvenience in one's own. It is precisely at this time, when we appreciate the support and security of our own communities, that we can help others to find a place called home.