AU

OPINION
Tuesday, June 12, 1984

The Michigan Daily

Page 6

01b* t idtbgrn Uai tl
Vol. XCIV, 'No, 16-S
94 Years of Editorial Freedom
Managed and Edited by Students at
The University of Michigan
Editorials represent a majority opinion of the
Daily Editorial Board
After Braun Court
N o ONE WAS very surprised last week
when the City Council rejected a plan to
rezone the Braun Court apartment buildings
as strictly residential. The proposal, which was
part of an attempt to save the apartments
from conversion into offices and retail space,
had become a focal point of the efforts to limit
the development of downtown Ann Arbor. The
Republican-controlled council recognized this,
and tried to use their clout to hand the anti-
development forces a major defeat.
They did not succeed. While the proposed
fate of Braun Court was certainly symbolic of
the ominous future of local development, the
specific rezoning proposal was peripheral to
the central issue. Singling out the Braun Court
property for rezoning was of questionable
legality in the first place, and the proposal's
passage would have been blatantly unfair to
the current owner of the complex.
Thankfully, the Downtown Neighbors
Association, which has led the fight against
indiscriminate downtown development, has
much stronger cards in its hand. It has
pledged to push the city to reevaluate its
regulation - or lack of regulation - of new
local development. If properly conducted, the
reevaluation could pave the way-to the very
changes sought by the DNA. A comprehensive
rezoning study, specifically aimed at preser-
ving low income housing and the city's unique
neighborhoods, would enable the city to place
legal and far more justifiable limitations on
individual plots of land.
Without prompt action by the city gover-
nment, Ann Arbor is in real danger of losing
some of its most important assets. Only
vigorous new land use regulations can prevent
the city's special character - and the
Republican's cherished property values -
from being destroyed by a wave of unlimited
development.
i - -a

LETTERS TO THE DAILY
Daily criticism of PSN unfair

4

To the Daily:
Over the course of the two and
one half years I have been in An-
n Arbor, your newspaper has of-
ten exasperated me. But your
editorial of June 8 ("PSN gets
sloppy") has finally prompted
me to write.
In this editorial, you condemn
the Progressive Student Network
for perpetrating a "carefully or-
chestrated public relations ef-
fort," intending "to get their pic-
tures plastered over the local
papers." As a member of PSN, I
would like to point out to the
editors that our organization
carries out many activities that
the Daily never bothers to men-
tion, undoubtedly because they
are not "dramatic" enough for
your paper. If anybody can be
accused of sloppiness on this
point, it is the editors of the Daily,
as they rarely make an effort to
carry out an in-depth analysis of
anything going on at the Univer-
sity. The only coverage of the
weapons research issue in your'
paper has been the result of an
action taken by the PSN.
The presentation of the Bid for
Peace at Mayor Belcher's house
was not done to insult anyone. It
was felt that reaching the Mayor
as an individual was more impor-
tant than lecturing him at a City
Council meeting. Any incon-
venience that was caused was
surely less important than the
implications of turning Ann Ar-
bor into a high-tech weapons cen-
ter.
The Daily also showed its
ignorance of the action by
labelling it "civil disobedience."
Civil disobedience is the refusal
to obey a law which is felt to be
unjust; PSN and MAD did not
break any laws, nor did we intend
to.
You accuse us of "trivializing"
an important issue. But you are
the ones who printed the picture.
If you are so offended by such ac-
tions, why bother covering it?
I think that perhaps your time
would be better spent doing some
investigation into what is
happening to our University and
our city. I personally have han-
ded many documents to reporters
concerning the issue of weapons
research on campus, and yet not
once have you bothered to check
into the problem on your own.
The reason we invite the Daily to
our actions is so that you will be
encouraged to cover an impor-
tant issue. It does not seem like
this is working. I doubt very
much that anyone on the Daily
has ever read anything we've
given to your reporters, and yet
you accuse us of being sloppy.
For two years now, the PSN
has been doing the job of in-
vestigating the weapons research
issue. What has the Daily been
doing all this time? Eleven PSN
members were arrested for
blockading a weapons research
lab, but you have yet to write a
piece on what is going on in the

lab. We did not make up the ac-
cusation that Professor Haddad
was doing research on the
Phoenix missile-it was written
in the statement of work from the
Department of Defense, a
document which we gave to one
of your reporters.
The Progressive Student Net-

work has many activities planned
for the near future, but I can't
think of any that your newpaper
would want to cover. Maybe if we
have a Jello Jump or Car Bash
we'll give you a call.
-Chris Hill
June 8

4

Saving Braun Court

To the Daily:
I wish to commend Lowell
Peterson and all those who spoke
at the City Council meeting on
June 4 in favor of narrowly
defeated proposal to rezone a
portion of Fourth Avenue for
residential use.
The specific issue was the con-
version of Braun Court for retail
use. We are about to lose
something unique and of great
value. Yes, it is true that a more
comprehensive plan for limiting
downtown development is
needed; that Braun Court issue
was attacked "at the eleventh
hour"; that the owners could lose
money through a rezoning. But
this must be measured against
the loss of something of real,
historical, spiritual, and tangible
value to the community. Braun
Court was worth preserving. It
will leave a hole, for those who
were aware of its special quality.
There was no time to wait for a
large overall plan.
I would encourage anyone with
memories or photographs of
Braun Court as a residence to
preserve them. They may one
day at least be of historic value,
and at best-in 10, 50, or 100
years-provide a record for a
renovation or emulation of the
Stoney as
To the Daily:
Once again, the Daily's
editorial board has shown its
remarkable talent for talking out
of its ass. In your editorial of
June 10 (Hands off Stoney
Burke), you maintain that the
cops who arrested Stoney Burke
were violating his rights. That is
horseshit. I was here and saw the
"incident." Stoney was being
personally abusive, and there is
no reason to tolerate that. He has
every right to vent his views on
the United States, Reagan, the
church, Central America, or
anything else all day if he wants
to. But when he starts calling
people names and telling them to
fuck off, he'd better be prepared
to pay the price.
Your argument that his
behavior is justified because
other orators have called Diag
pedestrians "whores" and con-
demned them to hell is likewise
stupid. There is no reason to ac-
cept that kind of abuse either.
My usual reaction to being

Court.
As the votes were taken on
Monday night, I noticed what
seemed a forced quality-an odd
reluctance-in the tone of those
who voted "no." Could it have
been that there was an un-
derlying sense of discomfort in
the face of the strong arguments
for human values that had been
presented? Mayor Louis Belcher.
spoke against the adoption of a
resolution merely because it was
"popular." But is democracy not
"government by and for the
people"? The majority of those
present in the room who were in-
formed and concerned favored
the rezoning. Perhaps even those
who voted "no" had within them
some measure of awareness that
the democratic process in which
they were engaged was
somewhat skewed.
I can only hope that this
defeat will at least spur a full
investigation into the trend
toward cancerous business ex-
pansion downtown, and the
creation of limits and standards.
The area's unique character and
the availability of low- and
moderate-income housing must
be preserved.
-Barbara Nagler
June 6
ked for it
called a vile name or being told to
fuck off is to want to punch the
offending person in the face. Are
you saying that it's my right to do
so? By extension of your
argument, this would seem to be
the case. I'm sure Stoney would
appreciate knowing I had your
support if I were to swat him up-
side the head for, say, telling me
to fuck off.
The First Amendment is a
wonderful thing, and to leap
heroically to its defense (as you
seem to think you have done) is
laudable. But with the rights
specified in that statute comes
the responsibility to respect the
rights of others. What about my
right to study peacefully? Spring
term finals are coming up real
soon, you know.
I have nothing against either
the Daily or Stoney Burke-in
fact I find both of you rather
droll-but I wish you both would
exercise a little common sense.
-John Robson
June 10

0
0
6

J