THE EVENTS OF THE past month revealed with painful clarity the wide gulf that exists in Cambridge between developers and activists for the homeless. With the demolition of Tent City and the arrest of 10 activists and homeless persons, MIT announced its stance on the issue. MIT said that while it is sympathetic to the plight of the homeless, the problem is not the institution's responsibility. MIT claimed that the eviction was motivated by a concern for the health of the residents of Tent City. But the institution refused to negotiate with Tent City before the eviction and discussions since then have produced nothing. Representatives of the institution have stated "the issue of homelessness is in the first instance a matter of public policy and public responsibility."

By contrast, the activists and residents of Tent City demanded that MIT negotiate and take a more active role in solving the community's problems. Specifically, they demanded that MIT make concessions to the homeless at the site of the planned multi-million dollar University Park development. The development, as it is now envisioned, will provide MIT with more than 100 units of new housing. The proposal has been tied up for several years largely due to strong community resistance to MIT's expansion.

Second only to Harvard in Cambridge property holdings and one of the largest institutions in the state, MIT is certainly an appropriate place to start building a community-wide solution to the problems of housing and homelessness in this city. MIT's investment and development of real estate--like Harvard's--have contributed strongly to the lack of low and moderate-income housing in the city, and it is only fitting that MIT be expected to play a larger role in the effort to relieve the strains of expansion and displacement.

As a starting point, MIT might seriously consider some of the ideas advanced by the founders of Tent City now nearly two months ago. Vacant property held by MIT certainly could be used to house homeless people and greater provision could be made for subsidizing low-income units in the new complex. Evictions and arrests can strengthen neither the community, nor MIT's relations within it. In their negotiations with Tent City representatives, MIT has refused to discuss specifics which could provide for a long-term role in assisting the homeless in Cambridge. Without such a commitment, MIT will only create more tension, more resistance, and more displaced persons to camp out in the cold.