- . " ? h if Yw .' a y .±a tiA, . CeIW y~~ueN * 1 (fAle~ THE MILWAUK(EE JOURNAL ftbllsh-iu-IIAU $',dica* 10j74 Abe idygan :43 Zlj Eighty-Four Years of Editorial Freedom Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan 420 Maynard St.,:Ann Arbor, Mi. 48104 News Phone: 764-0552 - -___. FRIDAY, MARCH 29, 1974 First Ward: Brunton THE FIRST WARD IS a crucial race in this year's municipal elections and The Daily urges a vote for the Human Rights Party (HRP) candidate Beth Brunton. The First Ward is crucial because the HRP has a reasonable chance of win- ning and keeping an HRP member on Council. This .is obviously highly desir- able. There is a need in this city for a party dedicated to people over property. Brunton is a fine candidate, and we can lend her our wholehearted support. Like all HRP candidates she can be counted upon to vote correctly and con- sistently on the multitude of issues fac- ing the city. The endorsement is not based on mere pragmatism. When the staff voted on endorsements, it was decided not just to endorse candidates who had a good chance of winning, but to endorse candi- dates whose politics are consistent with the beliefs of The Daily. Brunton's stance on rent control and marijuana are correct, in the opinion of the Daily. Indeed, we could not support a candidate who is opposed to these vital issues. THESE TWO CRUCIAL ISSUES are the hottest in this year's election, and Brunton supports the mboth. She has not waffled or changed her stance on either,, remaining resolute. Brunton is also knowledgeable and ex- perienced on the subject of city politics. She has both excellent academic and practical experience. An economics ma- jor, she has also served on the city's plan- ning commission where she voted against both Packard-Platt and McDonalds. Brunton's Republican opponent is clearly unacceptable despite her reputa- tion as the party liberal. Her stands on rent control and marijuana are clearly out of line with both the ward and the general tenor of the city. Colleen McGee, the Democrat, has a s m i':?3 x li ft zw.., Se3r7 M NP ;; ,¢¢,ee;;AG.. ti t.!f, I Vii;:>$ j5< i 1 .S ; C :hM My; 11m: 1 Yr yY 4 c { sir: P^f a 5 rMs NPM rx: I{'M 5 { aZ, S 1 3 n f U YRRJ ro. ,'1 4'?M gw"s 5r y!F F ... M ygg s kL 5h i-S a zy y.: i ,.,, :,,, F i% f y zx i f: : r..,::%' , .:t I -t 1 Letters 'to To The Daily: ON THURSDAY The Daily pub- lished a long, long letter attacking rent control by long-time A n n Arbor Democrat And near-million- aire Zeke Jabbour. That letter was filled with half-truths (at best), spurious arguments, doubtful do- cumentation and the type of dou- bletalk and mystification which only someone scared that tenants might stand up for their rights would resort to. Zeke starts off by saying that he doesn't know if it is possible "to design a workable long-range con- trol plan for an isolated point in geography." Our progressive friend therefore suggests that we not try. But such a spirit, if applied to cur- ing polio would be, "I'm not sure we can do it, so let's not try." In part, HRP agrees with the criti- cism. A long-term solution cannot occur in an isolated spot in geo- graphy but the correct approach should be to start with the iso- lated spot and expand until it is no longer isolated. Then we'll have a long term chance. JABBOUR PARADES before us such figures as J. K. Galbraith and Walter Heiler (who are not exact- ly known as being in the forefront of the fight for tenants' rights) as sources of the "ultimate know- ledge" that rent control won't work and suggests that not one "respectable" economist w o u l d argue for it. Radicals have long known that "respectable" usually means "conservative", "liberal" or at least "not radical." It isn't surprising that virtually no re- spectable economist would endorse rent control for most people who might endorse the proposal sim- ply don't get jobs that make them "respectable" or, if they do en- dorse rent control then, in Jab- bour's eyes, they obviously aren't "respectable." Yet it is interest- ing to note that the majority of the economics graduate students and some of the younger, not yet "respectable" economics profes- sors, who have studied under these great patrons, are both authors and supporters of this bill. ZEKE, WHO isn't exactly con- cise himself, attacks the proposal as being written in long and com- plicated "legalese." He suggests that HRP wrote it this way be- cause either we like lots of small print or we want to trick voters into voting for something t h e y couldn't understand. Come on. Did you ever take a look at all the fine print in your lease? The law is written that way because if we wrote it in concise and simple English the landlords would not be spending more than $40,M) fighting it now because t,14-y wouldn't care. Once it had passed they could have their slick hign- priced lawyers sidestep every part of the law. That's why it's long and complicated. Zeke gives us a laundry list of rent control's problems, none of which he documents in any way and a large number of which are just plain wrong, if not malicious lies. For example, it is "poten- tially inequitable," whereas the present rent system is just plain inequitable; it's "legally suspect" but so is all progressive legisla- tion; "it favors leverage o v e r equity," that's just plain untrue: by including principal payments as costs the amendment favors owner- ship over speculation and its con- sequent high costs for tenants. ZEKE "Scare the Students to Death Before They Cut My Pro- fits" Jabbour, says the law pro- motes superficial rather than thorough repairs. This is not tzue. Rather this is the way a moyey hungry landlord and his friends (like Zeke) would read it in their .quest to increase their profits as much as possible. So long as !and- lords own houses they don't live in, no law will be able to make them make thorough repairs- because their interest is in a fast buck. At least the rent control law en- courages them to make repairs of some kind, which is more than they do now. Our poet laureate goes on to ac- cuse the writers of lack of imag- ination and of a lack of flexibility in the law. He suggests that we could have exempted a senior citi- zen who owns only a single unit; the law exempts ALL-persons who have only a single owner occupied building with three or less rented units. Using one extreme example, Zeke suggests that the law might hurt a senior citizen who owns her home free and clear and rents it out. But the law has a special hardship clause, for both tenants and landlords, which would allow the board in such a case to raise the senior citizen's rent to save her from the dire strai-s which Zeke, but not HRP, foresees for her. (For someone who complain- ed about having to read the whale law, Zeke doesn't seem to have read it very carefully.) AN IMAGINATIVE amendment, Zeke continues, would have saved the downtown area. So woui l the Wizard of Oz. Downtown is what it is today because of Briarwood, Ann Arbor Tomorrow and other maneuvers pulled by Ann Arbobusiness interests. Now all of a sudden the writers of the rent con- trol hill aren't "imaeinative ' un- The Daily I I stopped believing in Santa Claus long ago. For five years there has been no construction either of low cost housing in Ann Arho, or of any housing in the downtown area. Now, landlords say, we will solve this problem for you - and fast too! Just look what we've done re- cently. (Oops, didn't mean to say that.) Let's face it. There is a housing shortage. Ann Arbor's semi-monopolistic housing market hasn't solved it in the past and can't and won' tsolve it now. The question is, do you want a cheap shortage or an expensive one? IN SHORT, Zeke's arguments just don't make it. Rent control will help lower rents, will encour- age maintenance and will begin to give tenants some control over their living situations. Rent c.n- trol will provide an experience that other towns can share and build on and that Ann Arbor people can take with them when they leave and build on elsewhere. VOTE YES ON RENT CON- TROL! -Richard Levy IIRP Campaign Coordinator March 28 pompom To The Daily: " AN OPEN LETTER TO DON CANHAM: WE FEEL we must protest y,,)ur proposed new practice of having pom-pom girls at football games, which I recently saw noted in the University Record. I have been to several University football games with friends visiting from o *'."i e t schools, and all along I have been proud that Michigan doesat have anything as demeaning as pom- pom girls, while all the other teams do. Now you are go+n; to ruin it. And the sad part about it is, you probably think wri're be- ing terrifically open-minded a n d liberal In case you haven't heard of :t out there at the Athletics Build- ing, there's a new movement going on. Through women's libera;:en, women are encouraged to dis-o: er themselves as individuals an!] hu- man beings, not as objects. Un- fortunately, many women as well as men have not heard of this movement, and still think of them selves as objects. These are the people you will put out on "tir football field as "pom-pom" girls CONSIDER THp; term "p,)11 pcrr girls." These unfortunates a.,e n-,t even women, a term connoting self- respect, awareness, and in.l:pend- ence; they are only girls, a word connoting cuteness, empty-neaded- ness - "object-ness." There was an article rec,-r.tly in the Detroit Free Press. Y:fu mac have seen it. It was about a TV cameraperson whose job it was to pick out (in his words) "h meys," "broads," and "cuties" to s>i,,+w on TV for the viewing pleas ire of the male chauvinists at home. Please compare his philosophy with your own practice of presenting porn-porn girls. Female cheerleaders are a fine idea. However, do not turn them into a skin show. They sltonld be dressed exactly as are the male cheerleaders - in pants and swee- ters. Let us not lower these wo- men to the level of objws. Let them be women athletes with the opportunity to demonstrate their skills. I consider it ironic that your "pom-pom girl" announce- ment came out in the same issue of the Record as an announcement about a new funding pro!)-)!.al for women's athletics. One step for- ward, one leap backward. WOMEN'S liberation is making slow but sure progress. Y xxr new policy could be a tremendous lean backwards, and make me ashamed of my University. I hava, talked this over with many of my friends and they agree. Please reconsider your policy. Thank you for your time. --Barbara Kern and 20 others Feb. 23 To The Daily: AS DAN BURKE'S representa- tive to the candidates night spon- sored by Project Community, I must clear up your' interpretation of my remarks. I said that the use of revenue sharing money for child care had been one of the highlights of city spending. Never had so much in services been received for so lit- tle money. That, should this sup- port end, much more than the $200,000 would be lost: all the vol- unteer energy, all the organiza- tion, and all the good will that the child care centers had produced. But, should we lose these funds, we should not abandon the pro- jest. To maintain the project I supported a large sliding scale, such that those who had large financial resources would carry the majority of the costs. It is on this point that you mistakenly in- ferred that I didn't support city E funding. Dan Burke does not believe in solving our financial problems by cutting off this vital social service. David Perlman Campaign manager for Dan Burke, Democratic candidate for Council ii".. 4 A,! g8i Bryn 't 4 E z, L td r ; z:2v f r,;> I y {J5i ud:d S :v fs;jyt N!iy g.. <'yg ; n i 3;v k 2w c:< Ps xK 3!tt Ni; rjt 5si r u r f r :i3A iaC,;R T.il1A i j Y1 y tit :p4j