The intense media coverage given to last week's "occupation" of Lyndhurst Street accomplished several things: It made Rev. Bruce Wall, the minister who led the week's crusade, a household name in and around Greater Boston; it proved just how easy it is to manipulate much of the mainstream media in Boston; and it showed how, especially in a political year, a squeaky wheel can be greased relentlessly, to the detriment of so many others in need.

For those results, the people who live in and around Lyndhurst Street paid a heavy price, one which they were not even asked to bear. It was imposed on them in a manner which can only be described as callous and selfish. The street has been demonized, labeled as a "hell zone" and treated- as Dorchester has so often been in the past- with disrespect by those in power who don't live here.

The behavior of Minister Wall in the last several weeks is itself worthy of more careful scrutiny. Nowhere in the deluge of daily reports was it noted, for example, that Wall had- in the run-up to his "occupation"- been pushing to get city officials to designate his church as the developer of a vacant lot on Washington Street. It's worth noting that Wall's plan to build a church-run facility on the site has been met with considerable resistance from many other longtime Codman Square leaders. Privately, some longtime Codman Square activists lament that the good reverend routinely has ignored their requests of the years to meet with them to find ways to curb crime and promote the many good assets in that neighborhood.

Several weeks before his Lyndhurst Street invasion, Wall launched a "No Guns in Codman Square" initiative which, he told reporters, would involve the canvassing of a ten-block radius around his Dorchester Temple Church. The volunteer effort was aimed, he said, at getting people to turn in guns to police or tip officials off to their whereabouts. A noble cause for sure- and a welcome initiative. But, how come it suddenly was tabled for the more sensational Lyndhurst occupation of the last week?

Now, in his most recent move, Wall is summonsing city officials and unnamed sports figures to donate millions so he can buy a block of apartments on Lyndhurst Street to control the flow of residents there. And, he told the Boston Globe that he might move his office there, too.

This flurry of activism from Wall may be well-meaning, but much of it seems impulsive, uncoordinated and, ultimately, without any real plan or direction. Worse, this brand of activism serves to undermine the many needy community-based efforts already underway. Many of these non-profit organizations are suffering right now because major funders- government, private donors and foundations- are telling them that their wells are running dry. Funds are being re-directed to "new" initiatives.

If political figures, reporters and city officials want to spend some real quality time shoring up anti-crime and youth programs in Dorchester, they should not start from scratch with untested, pie-in-the-sky projects that have been dreamed up overnight. Get back to basics: Meet with the youth center directors, church-based programs, crime watch organizers, and civic leaders who have spent decades toiling in the vineyards towards the same end. They have a track record, they have boards of directors, they have accountability and they have unmet financial needs. These are the organizations that, along with aggressive policing, have made Boston a livable, relatively safe city for the last decade. They should not be abandoned or short-changed because they lack the gift for self-promotion.

The considerable influence of city, media and philanthropic powers should be put towards ensuring that the foundation of the 'Boston miracle' is not undermined by re-directing sorely needed resources somewhere else. And it certainly should not be used to stigmatize an entire street or neighborhood as it was this past week on Lyndhurst Street.

- Ed Forry