Eighty-four years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan
Thursday, March 20, 1975
News Phone: 764-0552
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mi. 48104
Dorm lottery stacked deck
PERHAPS THE WORST thing to
come out of the recent dormitory
lotteries, other than the fact that
many students will be dormless come
next fall, is that the University has
been sitting on a $5.6 million Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) low
interest loan since 1971. The use of
the loan, which will expire this June
30, was earmarked by HUD for con-
struction of new University housing
-the sad truth being that had the
University gotten off its bureaucratic
behind, they might not be in the pre-
carious situation they are now in.
'BUT LOAN OR NO LOAN, the Hous-
ing Office should have announc-
ed the lottery months ago, therefore
allowing students the chance to try
and find an apartment. By throwing
that many people out to the hungry
landlords in an already tight market,
not only will the landlords seize upon
the 'supply and demand' theory and
raise their rents, but also many stu-
dents won't be able to re-enroll be-
cause they can't afford the expensive,
off-campus housing. There is no jus-
tifying evicting present freshpersons
while allowing upperclass students to
remain. All students should be guar-
anteed two years in the dorm system,
if indeed that is their preference.
But, then, the University is not the
only party at fault here. Students who
had no intention of returning to their
dorm participated in the lottery any-
way, therefore creating panic that
was unnecessary. And, while they may
have some ax to grind, we abhor the
recent practices in some dorms of
making deals and selling lottery num-
bers.
THE UNIVERSITY has always, in
the past at least, felt some obliga-
tion to look out for the well-being of
its students. No doubt if you were to
ask them about it now, they would re-
affirm this committment. However,
looking back at some of the rather tu-
multuous events of this past semester,
one has to question whether the Uni-
versity's committment lies with the
students or whether it lies somewhere
else. It is high time that the Univer-
sity stopped treating its students like
baggage and pawns, moving them any
way they want with little or no say
from the students about their des-
tiny.
This institution should make a
more reasoned effort to treat its stu-
dents like human beings and not com-
modities, because, as one student re-
cently put it, it is, after all, the stu-
dents that make the University.
Rentt
By the Ann Arbor
Human Rights Party
SINCE THE Human Rights Party first
brought a rent control charter
amendment to the people of Ann Ar-
bor last year, no one has disputed that
rents in Ann Arbor are outrageously
high. No one has disputed that rents are
high because of the severe housing short-
age and the monopolistic control of the
housing market by large companies and
speculators. No one has disputed that
rent control is the only way we can
effectively lower rents.
Instead, all the arguments criticize
this particular rent control proposal. It
takes little political sophistication to
realize that some arguments are false
and come from people (like "Citizens
for Good Housing," i.e., landlords) who
wish to trick us into not passing rent con-
trol at all. In fact, all the arguments
we've heard are faulty - either by de-
sign, or because the people arguing
have not read and understood the pro-
posed amendment.
For instance, last year landlords ar-
gued that rent control forces up home-
owner property taxes. The only way
property taxes go up is when we vote for
a tax increase. Butthere's no reason
to believe rent control will affect total
tax collections at all. The present pro-
posal encourages maintenance and capi-
tal improvements passing on all such
costs to the tenant. That will help main-
tain property values. Besides, only 20
per cent of city revenues come from pro-
perty taxes on rental property. Even a
large drop in that sector will have little
effect on total tax revenues.
SOME PEOPLE fear that 3tudents who
sublease their apartments may have to
register as landlords, because "land-
lord" is defined as "any owner, lessor,,
sublessor, or any other person" who re-
ceives rent. But there can be only one
landlord of any unit. The definition is
designed to prevent big companies from
avoiding rent control by subleasing pro-
perties to each other. The elected board
will surely not choose to define "the
landlord" as the student sublessor rath-
er than the person she rents from.
Some critics argue that rent control
will either decrease new construction, or
These statements represent the major arguments for
and against the rent control charter amendment proposal
from people both familiar and concerned with its impli-
cations.
..: t. ".** .'.. .". . .
,t'::""l: ....::::"r: l.......r ....... ............::::...... l........:::.:: ^" {; .. .. ~1. "."{": { y;..".::::":f:: :i : ... .... .... ..:. ..
con trot:
that it will cause old houses to be torn
down and new high-rises built. But
there's been no new rental construction
in the central city for five years, and
there won't be any in the future, with
or without rent control. With inflated
land prices and recent increases in con-
struction costs, it doesn't pay for pri-
vate developers to build in the central
Pro
and
By LIZ TAYLOR
BELIEVE Ann Arbor needs rent con-
trol. That is why I am against HRP's
proposed Charter amendment,. which has
about as much to do with rent control
as Fear of Flying has to do with air-
planes.
The proposal will not necessarily hold
down rents. It is anti-tenant, anti-union,
city; no one who lives there could af-
ford to rent the new units.
DEMOCRATS have even claimed that
the amendment is anti-union. The amend-
ment allows the elected board to deter-
mine what maintenance costs are rea-
sonable and economical. HRP believes
that union labor is a reasonable cost.
We thought the Democrats did, too.
No substantive arguments against this
charter amendment stand up. The pro-
posal is carefully thought out, and. al-
lows the tri-partisan board discretionary
powers to grant exemptions, rent roll-
backs, and allowable profits. If problems
do arise, the board will be able to deal
with them.
Charter amendment is the best way
to enact rent control. The voters know
what kind of rent control legislation is
proposed; we have the power to pass it;
and only we havethe power to repeal
or change it. We don't have to trust poli-
ticians to "pass a better ordinance."
Will they introduceait? Democratic coun-
cilpeople Kenworthy and McGee last
year promised to, and we're still wait-
ing. Will it be better? Nobody's told us
what it will say, so we can't tell. Will
it be repealed when a new council is
elected? The $5 marijuana fine was; and
it was re-passed - by charter amend-
ment.
We ned rent control; and we need it
now, not maybe, not someday.
This position was compiled by several
members of the Human Rights Party
and presented as an official party state-
vzent.3
con
Control highway spending
'F THE UNITED STATES is ever to
develop a comprehensive, nation-
al program of mass transportation al-
ternatives to the automobile, leader-
ship in this endeavor will have to
come from the Federal government.
President Ford will in the next few
weeks propose that the states be given
$2 billion dollars from federal gaso-
line tax revenues for road construc-
tion in the form of new highways and
road repair. Ford has already allocat-
ed another $2 billion in previously im-
pounded funds for road repair and
updating.
While it can be argued that high-
way construction will provide a need-
ed boost to the economy, the longer
range social effect of still more super-
highways cannot be ignored.
In our cities, the massive displace-
ment of neighborhoods and the thick
miasma of air pollution that inevit-
ably accrue from freeway construc-
tion present the most acute threats to
the rapidly declining quality of urban
life.
IN ECONOMIC terms - and this is a
time when no economic consider-
ation is unimportant - the construc-
tion of highways reinforces the unfor-
tunate and massively wasteful Ameri-
can romance with the private auto-
mobile.
Perhaps that love affair will pale
when the demand for gasoline pushes
the price above one dollar a gallon,
TODAY'S STAFF:
News: Ellen Breslow, Barb Cornell, Jim
Finkelstein, Andrea Lilly, Jo Mar-
cotty, Sara Rimer, Stephen Selbst
Edit Page: Clifford Brown, Paul Hask-
ins, Greg Rest, Jeff Sorensen
Arts Page: Chris Kochmanski
Photo Technician: Karen Kasmauski
as some economists are forecasting.
A commitment to transportation al-
ternatives, however, must be made
now, and it must be initiated by the
federal government. President Ford,
in releasing these billions of tax dol-
lars, should have first stipulated that
most of the funds be reserved for
mass transportation and second, that
strict controls on the amount of new
highway construction be issued.
Only when such federal leadership
is forthcoming will be United States
be able to implement a sane transpor-
tation philosophy.
*1*
Editorial Staff
GORDON ATCHESON CHERYL PILATE
Ca-Editors-in-Chief
LAURA BERMANd......Sunday Magazine Editor
DAVID BLOMQIST ,......Arts Editor
DAN BORUS ...........Sunday Magazine Editor
BARBARA CORNELL ... .Special Projects Editor
PAUL HASKINS .... ..........Editorial Director
JOSEPHINE MARCOTTY ........Features Editor
SARA RIMER ...................Executive Editor
STEPHEN SELBST................. City Editor
JEFF SORENSEN............Managing Editor
STAFF WRITERS: Glen Allerhand, Peter Blais-
deli, Dan Blugerman, Clifford Brown, David
Burhenn, Mary Harris, Stephen Hersh,
Debra Hurwtz, Ann Marie Lipnski, Andrea
Lily, Mary Long, Rob Meachum, Alan Resnick,
Jeff Ristine, Steve Ross, Tim Schick, Kate
Spelman, Jim Tobin, David whiting, Susan
wilhelm, Margaret Tao.
Sports Staff
BRIAN DEMING
Sports Editor
MARCIA MERKER
Executive Sports Editor
LEBA HERTZ
Managing Sports Editor
BILL CRANE...........Associate Sports Editor
JEFF SCHILLER.Associate Sports Editor
FRED UPTON........ Contributing Sports Editor
NIGHT EDITORS: Andy Glazer, Rich Lerner, Ray
O'Hara, Bill Stieg
ASSISTANT NIGHT EDITORS: Rick Bonino, Tom
Cameron. Jon Chavez, Tom Duranceau, Kathy
Henneghan, Al Hrapsky, Ed Lange, Jeff Lieb-
ster, Scott Lewis, Dave Wihak, Michael Wilson
DESK ASSISTANTS: Marybeth Dillon, Enid Gold-
man, Marcia Katz, John Neimeyer
SIDESWIPES
The Temple tantrum
and badly drafted.
It discourages the rehabilitation of pre-
sently run-down housing and encourages
shoddy new construction and urban
sprawl. It guarantees abandonment of
student-area housing and the destruc-
tion of the neighborhoods in which that
housing is located.
HRP CLAIMS its proposal will prevent
deterioration of the existing housing
supply. In fact, the amendment encour-
ages deterioration and abandonment of
existing units. The proposal should real-
ly be called the "slum and sprawl"
amendment.
The most convenient place for a Uni-
versity student to live is within walking
distance of the campus. It is nrecisely
this area that immediately surrounds the
campus that contains older rental hous-
ing units, many, of them in converted
houses and many of them improperly
maintained.
Instead of offering an incentive to
current or future owners of such units
to keep them up, the proposed amend-
ment discourages improvements and pro-
per maintenance. "Unreasonable" e x -
penses, which cannot be passed on to
tenants, include maintenance that be-
came necessary due to "neglect" of
"an unreasonable deferral . . .of
maintenance functions."
These proviisons guarantee that run-
down housing in which students are cur-
rently living will not be fixed; rather
the units will be permitted to deteriorate
to the point where they become unfit for
human habitation.
THE ABANDONED buildings will then
be sold to developers who can put uip
cardboard apartment houses inpt h e
student area.
This means that in the short run, the
housing supply in the student areas will
be smaller than it is now; in the long
run, it means that apartment houses
(which will not be cheap) will be the
only one that makes economic sense un-
der the terms of the proposed amend-
ment,because while landlords cannot
pass on the costs of renovation and re-
habilitation,sthey can pass on the costs
of new construction.
Mortgages are generally given on land
and buildings. The worse the shape a
building is in, the cheaper the mortgage.
Since the amendment prohibits passing
on the cost of mortgages and land con-
tracts, the more deteriorated a building
is, the cheaper the mortgage both in
absolute and relative to the cost of
putting up a new building on the same
site.
In the student area, the provisions of
the amendment mean that there will be
no neighborhood preservation. It means
the housing supply will be of worse
quality and will shrink and we will be
stuck with new cardboard apartment
houses which will be anything but cheap.
ONE OF the reasons I am upset about
this course of events is that I live
in the student area, and I'd rather not
see my neighborhood destroyed.
The provisions I have talked about -
the inability to pass on mortgage costs
but the acceptability of passing on the
costs of new construction - will also
lead to more development on the out-
skirts of town. This is known as urban
sprawl. This is ludicrous.
The amendment provides that base
rents shall be set no later than Septem-
ber 1, 1975. In practical terms, this
means that is exactly when rents will
be set, and not one day before.
While the amendment says that the
rent in effect in September will be the
lesser of (1) what is being asked or (2)
the 1973 rent, the proposal also gives the
Rent Control Board broad discretion-
ary powers like the ability to "grant
variances from the strict application"
of the provisions of the amendment on
a simple majority vote.
SUCH VARIANCES can be appealed
by either the landlord or the tenant,
but it is clear to me that if the base
rents are not what the majority either
of landlords or tenants like, one of two
things will happen: (1) there will be so
many appeals and so much administra-
tive work that a given appeal will not
be heard for a long time or (2) people
will be so glad to gethany kind of housing
at any price that they will not bother
filing an appeal.
THE PROPOSAL is one of the most
blatant examples of anti-unionism to
appear in recent memory. It says that
maintenance must be done in "as eco-
nomical a manner as feasible." That
sounds terrific - but think about it for
a minute.
Many of them belong to organized lab-
or unions; some don't. A plumber who
is a member of a union will almost al-
ways get paid more than a non-union
plumber for the same work. Ditto for
electricians, carpenters, etc.
Under the amendment, landlords and
their agents are effectively prohibited
from hiring union members to do main-
tenance work because the cost of union
labor cannot be passed on if anyone
else will do it cheaper. And someone
always will.
MAYBE LANDLORDS wouldnt u s e
union labor anyhow, but to prohibit its
use in the Charter of the City of Ann
Arbor is an insult to every organied
working man and woman in the City.
If there were nothing else wrong with
the amendment, I would have to oppose
it on these grounds alone.
Supporters of the amendment claim
that it will prevent unreasonable increas-
es in rent, but for at least one subcate-
gory of tenants in controlled units, noth-
ing could be farther from the truth.
Because the section on allowable max-
imum monthly rent adjustments makes
no reference to the future period of time
in which the adjustments apply, people
on a month-to-month tenancy could wind
up paying 80 per cent more for their
housing within a year's time.
The Consumer Price Index for rent
has been over 7 per cent recently, which
means the 5 per cent maximum figure
would apply. And 5 per cent compound-
ed monthly over a year's tne is 80
per cent. This is a major loophole in
the language and may not be what its
framers intended but the fact remains
that the amendment does permit such an
increase. Somehow, I can't convince my-
self than an 80 per cent increase in rent
each year is "rent control."
THlE PROBLEMS I have mentioned
with the amendment couldbe solved if
this were not a Charter amendment. The
very fact that it is an amendment,
which can only be altered by another
vote of the people on new language at
next year's election, is a major ob
stacle.
A matter as experimental as rent con-
trol in the City of Ann Arbor, which is
a somewhat unique market, should not
be put in the City Charter until we have
found a workable and equitable formula.
I am far from convinced that the pro-
posed amendment is either workable or
fair; I think some of the language is
actually contrary to the purpose of the
amendment. We are being asked to
buy a pig in a poke.
The proposed amendment does n o t
speak to the major problems that tenants
have, namely (1) security (or damage)
denosits are returned belatedly and par-
tially if they are returned at all and
(2) violations of health and housing
codes are not remedied and people are
therefore not geting what they are pay-
ing for.
THERE IS NO panacea for the hous-
ing problems in Ann Arbor - or in any
other city, for that matter. The proposed
amendment would, if passed, make this
situation in this town worse than it is.
However, if I am on Council and Al
Wheeler is Mayor, there will be some
changes made. The Mayor's position is
crucial in this election, and the choice
on April 7 is yours.
Liz Taylor, the Democratic candidate
for City Council in the First Ward, is a
research associate at the Institute for
Social Research and a former Washte-
naw County Commissioner.
By BOB SEIDENSTEIN
IT IS HEARTENING to see that
British television executives are
doing all they can to prevent t h e
further decline of the empire. Ever
vigilant to protect English children
from all enemies, both foreign and
domestic, they have declared that
Shirley Temple movies are not suit-
able for the youngster's viewing.
A spokesman for the Independent
Broadcasting Authority, which passes
judgment on all commercial TV pro-
grams, called the films "too mawkish
and sentimental. It was felt that
Shirley Temple singing 'The Good
Ship Lollipop' has no relevance to
children of today."
He's probably right. Shirley Temple
has about as much relevance to Brit-
ish children as the soccer standings
and the sex scandals which fill Brit-
ish newspapers have to their dads
and mums.
IT IS AN interesting proposition
that soapy, sentimental entertainment
has no place in the life of a child.
Adults get to see "Love Story," but
children must deal with reality.
Kids should have the freedom of
choice. If they want to watch a tap-
dancing tot they should be able to
without a Big Brother saying no.
Besides, who would ever believe a
Shirley Temple movie anyway? Sure-
ly you've seen one. The plot is al-
ways the same.
Our little miss plays a poor but
spirited orphan. When the orphanage
is faced with financial ruin, all of a
sudden she perks up and squeals, "I
know! Let's put on a show! Then
we'll have plenty of money, enough
even for ice cream!"
THE ORPHANAGE is filled with
more talented people than Ted Mack's
show had in 20 years, but no one
is as adorable as Shirley performing
on a set that would make most Broad-
way producers jealous. They could
have saved the day but putting the
money that went into staging t h e
show back into the orphanage, but
Shirley never thought of that and who
cares. All turns out well and our
dimpled darling actually ends up re-
united with her natural parents who
are the king and queen of England.
Okay, so it leans toward mawkish-
ness. Perhaps if some bureaucrat
heard of Shirley's idea for a show,
said "no, we can't afford it," went to
a government appropriations commit-
tee instead and ended up indicted for
perjury, it would be suitable for the
kiddies. At least it would be rele-
vant.
CHILDREN should see the facts
about life right now when they are
young. Happiness and fantasy are
only okay in small doses.
So kids, don't worry. You'll be safe
from creeping Shirley Temple-ism as
long as we are around to tell you
what's good for you.
Bob Seidenstein is a member of the
Editorial Page staff. -
q
r7AP
s
T 6 t
kV'r:
A4
ws~~
Al
vr i
ASTAIR6.
/ o
4
60 lZE
wC~
I A P
FIFE.
TTLAPPNJC)5NMPt
LO''14OX#
M CV~P MY,
FAu
-
,Hicv-
Letters to The Daily
To The Daily:
THE DAILY seems to be fix-
ated on a baseball bat these
days. I have no particular op-
position to this fixation, except
in that it involves my name.
Let me go over a few facts
concerning my recent escapades
with the Ann Arbor police
1. On Wednesday, March 12, I
witnessed a local resident file a
report with the police concern-
ing police possession of a base-
ball bat at the Rackham Audi-
torium Palestinian demonstra-
tion.
2. Shortly after I learned that
quite pick up on.
First, is tear gas. There are
basically two kinds of t e a r
gas: C-S and C-N. C-S is the
more damaging kind of gas.
C-S is the tear gas contained in
Ann Arbor tear gas canisters.
Ann Arbor also has on hand te-ir
gas guns and pellets which, of
course, can do severe facial
damage and put out a person's
eye if fired into a crowd. (It is
the statement of the police de-
partment that these guns are
rarely used and are roz usid in
crowd situations. Why keep
them around at all, I ask?)
SECONDLY, I decided that : s
long as I was wall ving in the
ever, Police Chief Walte' Fras-
ny told us that such Silas had
been kept on radicais who had
been arrested. Krasny stated
that in '71 on his ncd,-rs these
files had been given to te FBI
and state authorities.
WE HAVE no direct ildorma-
tion on what kind of files are
currently being kept by the Ann
Arbor police department. My
guess is that they do 1ave files
on radicals, homosexuals, anti-
war activists, and others they
deem as threats.
HRP will soon intruduce a pro-
posal to establish a Community
Control Board of the POTce.
This board could put a foot in
A) AMP OU OR
p 00 A O cFS~
At7K5 Xr
myo- i -t
_Li
vf cooc
i
K'
4J0fJ-
15&7W6
ISOccT~
inf
.-
s
C
'
'f~
A j r' '
- i-
It