4 - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com E-MAIL ROSE AT ROSEJAFF@UMICH.EDU L7C c 1814al Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@umich.edu GARY GRACA ROBERT SOAVE COURTNEY RATKOWIAK EDITOR IN CHIEF EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR MANAGING EDITOR Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors. Defeat by delay City Council hesitation halted crucial housing development While less fortunate citizens of Ann Arbor are proba- bly better off than residents of other Michigan cities, Ann Arbor is still in need of more economical living. Truly affordable housing is greatly needed for certain residents and students in the city, which is why it's a shame some devel- opers are having such a hard time constructing it. Over the last few weeks, Ann Arbor City Council has stalled on approving City Place, a new student housing project. A reconfigured plan for the project was finally approved last Monday, but the approved ver- sion is greatly reduced from what the developer initially intend- ed. City Council's leadership on this issue has been lacking, and moving forward, the council should treat the need for housing ROSE JAFFE .. . t MY/ii Ai. f ff//Y 1 J ///// 1P i / ///'11.t (resb t- 1 lfne' As( sE cllex! fe- bWAIT sn F, e __ __ __ _ £?ld F 0 1 Policing equal pay 4 more seriously. Developer Alex de Parry originally proposed the construction of City Place, a low-income apartment complex along Fifth Avenue downtown, in early 2008. He aimed the project at residents whose income falls 80-90 percent below the city's median income. De Parry originally sought to create three separate apartment build- ings containing 90 housing units for a total of 164 bedrooms. The buildings would also have been equipped with 96 underground parking spaces. But this vision failed to pass City Coun- cil. Instead, the version finally approved - which City Council continued to delay its vote on until de Parry threatened a lawsuit - will create two smaller buildings with a parking lot between the two. There will be 24 units with 6 bedrooms within each unit. And instead of underground parking with 96 spaces, there will be a ground-level parking lot with only 36 spaces. The blame for City Place's diminished size rests squarely with City Council. Despite Ann Arbor's need for lower-income. housing, City Council consistently failed to make progress on the plan, instead suc- cumbing to the demands of some whose vision for the city does not provide ade- quate housing for all. Instead of stalling the project for nearly two years, City Council should have worked with de Parry to build a housing complex that will meet the needs of Ann Arbor's less fortunate residents. There are many Ann Arbor residents in need of affordable housing, and City Place could have been an answer to their problems. Affordable housing close to downtown would offer living space for low-income residents who work in the city. Without this housing, low-income families are forced to move toward the outskirts of the city, which worsens the city's socioeco- nomic divide. Additionally, this places the burden of commuting on the residents who are least able to afford it. Residents do have some concerns that are worth consideration. The construc- tion of City Place requires the destruc- tion of several older houses that provide some historic value to the city. But if City Council is going to prioritize the preserva- tion of these houses, it should have found an alternate location for de Parry to build. Such concerns shouldn't be placed above the needs of pw-incoe citizegs. . The city needs to workharder to provide housing for all types of residents, includ- ing low-income families and students. City Council should keep everyone's housing needs in mind to avoid botching proposals for affordable housing in the future. n Sept. 15, President Barack Obama reiterated his support for equal pay for equal work laws in a speech at the AFL-CIO Convention in Pittsburgh. He reminded con- vention attendees that "the very firstn bill I signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Act to VINCENT uphold the basic principle of equal PATSY pay for equal work." This bill strengthened the ability of workers to sue an employer with the intention of reducing race - or gender - based discrimination in the workplace. But this law - and other equal pay laws like it - is bound to fail because the progenitor of all unequal pay for equal work is the government itself. The free market assures that workers are paid what they deserve. All the government can possibly do is cor- rupt this system. Wages are determined by the output of the worker.If I produce $80 worth of goods in an eight-hour shift, my wage will tend toward $10 an hour in the free market. This is true because if I were paid less than $9 an hour, it would be beneficial for a different employer to hire me at $9.50 an hour, thereby earn- ingthe extra$.50 perhouron mylabor. This process of constant outbidding continues until the $10 per hour level is reached. This level is called the Mar- ginal Value Product. I will admit that widespread dis- crimination is possible in the free market. But those who discriminate pay very dearly for their discrimina- tion: Employers who discriminate get lower profits and consumers get fewer choices. To come up with an example that removes racial and gen- der implications, let's suppose that every American employerhated Cana- dian workers and decided to pay them less than their actual contribution to a finished product. Each Canadian, although producing at a level of $10 per hour, was only paid $5 per hour. In this situation, a couple of things. can be said. One, it opens a gap in the market where non-discriminating employers can hire exclusively Cana- dians and make massive profits. Two, those who suffer most from under- paying Canadians, and consequently also overpaying Americans for equal work, are employers. The employers themselves are earning lower profits and therefore paying for their anti- Canadian discrimination. The point is that the solution to discrimination is not the govern- ment, but rather the market. The very fact that employers are not actively excluding Canadians from jobs sug- gests one of the following cases: Either "discriminated" workers are being paid the right amount or the government is oppressing them. In other words, there must be either no problem and no government action is needed, or the government is causing the problem and all that is necessary is for them to get out of the way. If any liberals actually believe that there is widespread discrimination against a group of potential workers, then liberals should start businesses and pay that group more than their existing wage. Because most busi- nesses are interested in making a large profit, this type of mass hiring should already be taking place under a free market. Since it is not taking place, then either the government is oppressing people or workers deserve the wage they get. x _ Equal pay' for tquat ork laws hurts those who are allegedly dis- criminated more than those who are not discriminated. Suppose the Canadian workers, for whatever rea- son, are less productive and produce fewer goods per day than American workers, resulting in lower pay for the Canadians. Ifa law is passed say- ing that Canadians have to be paid the same as Americans regardless of level of production, the result would be that no Canadians would be hired - precisely the reverse of what the law intended. The government can't fix wage discrimination. The idea of forcing "fair pay" for everyone is a hopeless quest. For one, some people (myself included) find myjob deeplymotivatingin itself, and the fact that I derive more enjoyment from my job than my colleagues could be considered unfair. Do I deserve a lower wage in order to balance things out and make my net benefit from my job equal to that of my colleagues? How would you discount the wages of the middle class to make them fair when compared with the lower class? And even if everyone worked solely for the wages they earned, wouldn't it seem at least possible that some form of nepotism or playing favorites would occur? Rather than being the solution to the problem, government interven- into waescreates theproblem. he' goVernment, by fa'orTng sme workers over others, creates divisions in society. There is no such thing as a free lunch inseconomics, anwoekers 'shioutd be paid according to vha tey produce. Only the free market can guarantee equal pay for equal work. - Vincent Patsy can be reached at vapatsy@umich.edu. 4 4 MATTHEW SHUTLER| Cliches you meet in college Here at the University, students play a num- ber of different roles. There are the partiers, the studiers and the slackers. While it's been my experience that many people fall securely into one of the aforementioned stereotypes, it's more common for these subsections to overlap. This doesn't mean that other groups don't exist - these just seem to be the most obvious when you compare the different students here. I may only be one year older than you youn- gins, butI have learned a lot during my time here. The sooner you realize the inherent wisdom of my advice, the sooner you'll find your way, grass- hoppers. You don't want to simply fall into one of these groups out of a perceived necessity, no matter how appealing it may seem. You have an unbelievable opportunity to invent yourself, and ruining it by taking the easy way out and becom- ing a breathing clich6 would be such a waste. And for all of you who have seen "Mean Girls" I'm sure you know all about these cliches. The University of Michigan may not be as hardcore as Michigan State University when it comes to majoring in alcohol. But you have to admit, for one of the top universities in the country, we really know how to throw a shin- dig. From fraternities to block parties, rang- ing from beer and jungle juice to foam dance floors, there's never a weekend during which some group of people isn't getting drunk and making mistakes that they'll regret the next day. The people who live in this world of per- petual intoxication thrive on having fun and writing seven-page papers while hungover on Sunday afternoon. This isn't to say that this group doesn't do well in their classes. As a matter of fact, I know several people who party almost every night and still put a majority of their class- mates' GPAs to shame. What it comes down to is skill. Can you be out all night, get very little sleep and still be able to force yourself to read about the sociological ramifications of laugh- ing at a sexist joke? For most people I've seen, the answer is "no." But for those select few who can, I congratulate you. For those of you who have already skipped most of your classes because you were just too tired from last night, maybe it's time for a change. Add some balance to your life. This brings me to the partiers' natural oppo- sites, the studiers. These students - those who came to the University for the academics instead of the football legacy - do all of their homework. This is regardless of the fact that they have three 40-page articles - ones they will never be tested on - to read before their next poli-sci lecture. Weekends are devoted to the UGLi, and the closest thing they'll get to receiving an MIP is getting stopped by a Depart- ment of Public Safety officer to make sure that their water bottles aren't really vodka. After reading this description, words like "over-achiever" or "nerd" might come to mind. It seems that these students have no life out- side of class, and it's true some students study more than others - sometimes more than nec- essary - but I don't see how this is always a bad thing. We came to the University to make something out of ourselves and actually get a degree. Balancing studying and fun should be one of our main priorities. My advice for all you bookworms out there is to take a study break with friends, get some pizza and watch a car- toon Macaulay Culkin fight his way out of his library in "The Pagemaster." Then there are of course the slackers. What can I say about this group? They range from watching episodes of "The Office" all day to smoking pot in the cemetery at night. They got into the University on near-perfect test scores, never go to class and still ace every exam in Math 116. This group is fairly self-explanatory and the most self-fulfilling. But if you think you can coast through four years here and come out with a GPA higher than the legal blood alcohol level, you're sadly mistaken. Like the other groups, slackers need to balance out their lives with more wholesome fun and decent hours of studying. For all you freshmen out there trying to find a niche, take this simple advice. No matter who you think you are, remember that balance and variety are the keys to a successful run in col- lege. Mix it up - party Friday night, have a "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" marathon on Sat- urday and study on Sunday. It's never good to fall into only one category. No one wants to be a walking stereotype. Matthew Shutler is an assistant editorial page editor. The Daily is looking for a diverse group of strong, informed, passionate writers to join the Editorial Board. Editorial Board members are responsible for discussing and writing the editorials that appear on the left side of the opinion page. E-MAIL ROBERT SOAVE AT RSOAVE@UMICH.EDU FOR MORE INFORMATION. COLLEGE DEMOCRATS| Republican budget a bust Two weeks ago, State Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop announced the Senate Republicans' plan to solve Michigan's budget problems before the Oct. 1 deadline. His plan, which was formed without consulting Gover- nor Jennifer Granholm or House Democrats, represents the core of the Michigan Republican Party's ideology - namely, the decimation of state services. Bishop's bud- get is bad for working families, students, police, doctors, firefighters, local governments and low-income com- munities. It would roll back any progress our state has made over the last several years toward a new, stable economy. The bill would cut: " Michigan Promise Grant college scholarship: $140 million. Other college financial aid programs and scholar- ships: $48 million. " Reimbursement for community colleges for property tax revenue lost because of renaissance zones: $4 mil- lion. " $14 a month from Supplemental Security Income, which provides assistance to the elderly and people with disabilities who live independently: $30 million. - Payment rates to health care providers who treat Medicaid patients by 8 percent: $355 million. " Substance abuse services by 5 percent: $1 million. " Healthy Michigan programs that combat infant mor- tality, minority health, poison control centers, senior nutrition services and diseases ranging from heart dis- ease to arthritis: $20 million. - Revenue sharing payments to local governments (police, firefighters, other city services): $90 million. This is only a sample of the severe cuts this bill makes to our state's government. And the bill wouldn't raise a single dollar of additional revenue. Bishop's plan doesn't attempt to close loopholes in Michigan's severely flawed tax system or propose any additional changes to the state's structural deficit. This is a reckless attempt to strangle the government to the detriment of students and working families. What's worse, Speaker of the House Andy Dillon - without having proposed a budget resolution plan of his own - agrees with Bishop and is willing to adopt the Republican plan. Dillon is a Democrat, and has pledged to secure Democratic support for this disastrous bill. The College Democrats at the University of Michigan cannot stand for this plan or anyone who supports it. Eviscerating the budget in this way will irreparably harm Michigan. If young people are the future of this state, the Bishop/Dillon proposal is killing any hope for Michigan's future. The proposed programs to be cut are proof of that. On top of cutting health services for children, the bill would eliminate the Michigan Promise Scholarship, deal- ing a severe blow to students. 96,000 students statewide rely on this program, and over 5,000 students here at the University are eligible for the program's scholarships. There is some pushback against the Bishop/Dillon budget deal, and Granholm still has the ability to veto the final budget bill. The budget bills proposed by Gra- nholm and the Senate Democrats made significant cuts, yet retained essential fundingfor education, police, medi- cal and fire and added additional revenue to help the state deal with the deficit. Unfortunately, this movement is up against significant opposition that is committed to cram- ming through a flawed budget at all costs. In short, the Bishop/Dillon budget will hurt the quality of our education, health care and public services, and, as a result, our state's future. We need a budget that preserves these essentials that we - as students and residents of Michigan - rely on and deserve. This viewpoint was written by DJ Heebner, Lindsay Mlars and Nathaniel Eli Coats Styer on behalf of the University's chapter of the College Democrats. EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS: Nina Amilineni, Emad Ansari, Emily Barton, Ben Caleca, Brian Flaherty, Emma Jeszke, Raghu Kainkaryam, Sutha K Kanagasingam, Erika Mayer, Edward McPhee, Harsha Panduranga, Asa Smith, Brittany Smith, Radhika Upadhyaya, Rachel Van Gilder, Laura Veith LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor. Letters should be less than 300 words and must include the writer's full name and University affiliation. Letters are edited for style, length, clarity and accuracy. All submissions become property of the Daily. We do not print anonymous letters. Send letters to tothedoily@umich.edu. I *