Additionally, more than
15 community members
spoke against the 2857
Packard Road Planned Unit
Development
rezoning
ordinance, a conditional
zoning
agreement
introduced in 2016. The
zoning would shift eight
acres of property along
Packard road from R1C
single-family
residential
to R1E, a single-family
residential zoning which
allows for greater density.
The
developer
is
Jim
Haeussler of Saline-based
Peters Building Company
and the construction costs
estimated at $2.6 million.
The
community
members
cited
several
reasons to discontinue the
council’s support of the
ordinance. According to
these members, the area is
one of the last affordable
neighborhoods
in
Ann
Arbor and subsequently
has a diverse population.
Members
in
and
out
of Ward 3 argued for
environmental
and
historical
preservation
of the neighborhood and
brought
forth
concerns
over traffic congestion if
the development were to
be pursued.
Community
member
Emily Epstein moved to
the area several years ago
and urged the committee
members to reconsider the
proposal.
“I
find
it
difficult
to believe that elected
servants would have such
a poor command of current
economic conditions, and
your
interrelationships
its specific demographic
groups, like the soon to
be refugee middle class,”
Epstein said. “These are
not
starter
homes,
or
starter households. These
homes
house
real
and
noble people. The vast
number of retirees that
live in my neighborhood
will be pushed out as
property taxes rise with
absurd
housing
costs
under this proposed PUD.”
Councilmember
Ali
Ramlawi,
D-Ward
5,
expressed his hesitation
in moving forward with
the site plan during the
second readings of the
ordinances.
“The
PUD
should
provide public benefit, and
I frankly don’t see a lot of
it,” Ramlawi said. “When
you have 80 percent of
area residents petitioning
against it, that just speaks
volumes.”
On
the
other
hand,
Councilmember
Julie
Grand, D-Ward 3, said
since the council moved
to push the plan forward
in the past, they must
continue.
Grand
and
Councilmember
Zachary
Ackerman,
D-Ward
3,
expressed concern over
the
land
owner
clear-
cutting
the
trees
in
the
area
without
the
development.
“I think it would be
dishonest of me to ask
for it, and then reject it,”
Grand said. “Even though
I understand that there’s
a lot of really good intent
behind wanting to keep
the things you love about
your neighborhood. I don’t
think this plan, in terms of
housing type, is actually a
horrible plan.”
The official ordinance
to pass the amendments
of the plan needed eight
votes to pass, but only
six
members
voted
in
favor
of
it.
Because
of
its
contingency
on
the
first
ordinance
passing, councilmembers
unanimously
voted
against the site plan.
The
council
also
discussed the city code
of Ann Arbor in regards
to
marijuana
retailers,
microbusinesses
and
designated
marijuana
consumption
facilities.
Councilmember
Jane
Lumm, I-Ward 2, pushed
for
an
amendment
to
limit
the
proximity
of
marijuana businesses to
schools
and
child-care
buildings.
“It’s not a matter of
if marijuana is coming,
but
exactly
when
and
under what set of specific
regulations,” Lumm said.
Councilmembers
later
voted unanimously on a
resolution
proposed
by
Lumm to establish a body
to
review
and
oversee
responsible
marijuana
use.
Ewen
first
asked
Foley
about her decision to start
the foundation after James’
death in 2014. Foley explained
she
was
inspired
by
the
government’s
inaction
and
wanted her family to do
something in his honor. She
also commented on what has
happened in the five years
since
the
foundation
was
started.
“After Jim was executed,
I was angry, I was really
outraged,” Foley said. “I really
felt
that
our
government
had deceived our family and
totally abandoned us. It just
seemed like we had to do
something. Here we are five
years later and no one has
been held accountable for
Jim’s death, really, and the
challenge continues.”
The
panelists
also
discussed how U.S. policy
differs from that of European
countries; the United States’
does
not
negotiate
with
terrorist
organizations,
whereas other countries may.
Many of the journalists held
with James Foley were from
these countries and were
eventually released by ISIS,
as a result, Simon said.
“U.S.
policy
historically
has been that the U.S. does
not negotiate with terrorists,
does not make concessions to
terrorists,” Simon said. “Many
of the other countries around
the world look at the issue
much
more
pragmatically.
French
hostages
survive,
about 75 percent of the time.
Spain has the best record in
the world, everyone of them
has come home. There’s a
25 percent survival rate for
American hostages.”
Simon acknowledged the
issue is difficult to solve,
but emphasized he believes
there are things the United
States can learn from the
policy and actions of other
countries when negotiating
for hostages.
“I think the one thing the
Euorpeans have done well,
where the Americans have
really failed, is no American
citizen
should
feel
alone,
without the support of the
government, when they are
going
through
something
like this,” Simon said. “I
mean, that is cruel to leave
families to grapple with these
… not only does the American
government not support them,
but they are threatening to
put the families in jail for
seeking the return of their
loved ones.”
LSA
sophomore
Natalie
White, who is interested in
journalism but did not attend
the event, commented on how
she would expect the U.S.
government to react when
journalists
are
captured
abroad.
“Journalism
allows
information to spread from
source
to
people,
which
sounds incredibly basic, but
is truly so important,” White
said in a statement to The
Daily. “Journalism is what
connects all the classes and
what allows all people to
have access to knowledge of
what is going on in the world
around them.”
At the end of the event,
audience
members
were
able to ask questions of the
panelists,
both
through
question cards and Twitter.
The first question asked
dealt
with
whether
the
panelists believe Americans
fare worse in captivity than
people from other countries,
as well as how governments
paying
ransoms
impact
journalists who are still being
held.
“I mean we are hated in
the world, especially at this
moment in time,” Foley said.
“Westerners
are
targeted
anyway, because of various
western
coalitions.
But
absolutely. I think once they
found out Jim was American
he had one of the worst
treatments of any of the
hostages.”
To
conclude
the
event,
the panelists discussed how
journalism has been affected
by the Trump administration,
as well as how journalists are
treated abroad.
“The
Trump
Administration really assisted
the
Saudi
government
in
covering
up
that
crime,
it’s reprehensible and that
really sends a message to
enemies of journalists and
enemies of journalism and
those who want to persecute
journalists that there will be
no consequences in terms of
their relationship with the
United States,” Simon said.
White
also
explained
how she believes the Trump
administration’s
rhetoric
regarding journalists affects
their safety.
“I think that the president
telling the general public that
any group is a threat risks
that group’s safety,” White
said. “I think that journalists
often have to be more aware
now of their situations and
surroundings,
especially
when
interviewing
groups
that may see them as a threat.”
Foley reiterated her belief
that students should continue
pursuing journalism, despite
job insecurity, criticism from
the public and possible safety
risks.
“I would encourage them,
(being a journalist) would be
a very noble task,” Foley said.
“But also be honest. It’s hard
to make a living and it can be
risky. So if (students) want
to be journalists, they need
to become highly skilled at
protecting themselves. But
I think it’s so important —
we need them. It’s critical,
journalists are so important.
Without them we wouldn’t be
free.”
This is not to say that all forms
of privilege and marginalization
are the same, but it does mean
that we all have some common
experiences that we can access.”
Schlissel then took the stage to
express his pride in the University
progress towards achieving more
diversity, equity and inclusion. He
said DEI goals are integral to the
University’s values and mission.
“Our achievements thus far are
a direct result of so many members
of our community joining together
to not only advance our values, but
to live them,” Schlissel said. “To
share them broadly and instill
them in all parts of our mission as
a public university. This includes
thousands of people, faculty, staff,
students and supporters, past and
present, who care deeply about
our University… at the University
of Michigan, diversity, equity and
inclusion are values inseparable
from our excellence in research,
education and service.”
Keynote speaker Van Jones
began
his
speech
with
the
assertion that being able to work
collaboratively with people from
all
different
backgrounds
is
integral to success.
“The main point is this: I don’t
care if you’re Black, White, Latina,
Latino, Asian-American, Native-
American, I don’t care what
faith you are, I don’t care what
gender,
expression,
sexuality
you are,” Jones said. “In this new
century, the absolute prerequisite
superpower for success is how do
you perform in a radically diverse
environment. That will determine
your success or your failure in this
new century.”
Jones remarked on the different
consequences
marginalized
people face versus privileged
people for illegal activities, using
the example of his time as a
student at Yale Law School. He
said he saw other Yale students
breaking more rules than people
in housing projects, but he noted
how the people of color and the
poorer people from the housing
projects are the ones that ended
up with a criminal record.
“We have this false view of
reality. I saw more drugs used at
Yale University than I ever saw in
a housing project, period,” Jones
said. “I saw more rule-breaking,
I saw more norm breaking, I saw
way worse behavior at Yale than
I ever saw in a housing project.
And yet, when those kids got in
trouble at Yale, nobody called the
cops. At best, they went to rehab,
or Europe… But four blocks away,
in the housing projects in New
Haven, Connecticut, four Black
kids doing fewer drugs, selling
fewer drugs with less money
almost all went to prison in the
‘90s. And they came back 10
years later, 15 years later, 20 years
later. Now they’re drug felons.
And those same Yale students
in positions of power say ‘Well,
I can’t hire these people, they’re
drug felons.’”
In 2018, President Donald
Trump signed into effect the First
Step Act, which is a bipartisan bill
aiming to prepare incarcerated
people
for
re-entrance
into
society, encourage earlier release
dates and place emphasis on
rehabilitation
in
the
prison
system, according to FirstStepAct.
org. Jones helped pass the act
and claimed it passed because of
bipartisan work in Congress.
“When you have this many
people behind bars, you offend
the core sensibilities and the
core values of both political
parties,” Jones said. “At our best,
progressives
and
democrats
believe in something called justice,
we don’t like it when majority
groups run over minority groups.
At their best, conservatives care
about something called liberty,
individual
rights,
individual
dignity and limited government.
Well, the incarceration industry is
running over the concept of justice
and liberty… You’ve got to learn
how to work across ideological
lines, racial lines, to get something
done.”
Jones
concluded
his
address by discussing how the
University’s DEI initiatives can
prepare
students
to
succeed
after graduating and can help
the world by creating solutions
through collaboration in a diverse
environment.
“We’re developing a capacity
for people to at least work across
difference,
to
recognize
the
battleground and deal with that
effectively, but never lose sight of
the common ground and be able
to deal with that effectively too,”
Jones said. “And if this University
community is going to be able to
have the impact it needs to have,
central to the mission has to be
this idea of diversity, equity and
inclusion.”
In a panel discussion after
Jones’ speech, LSA senior Dim
Mang addressed how emotionally
draining it can be to be a student
activist and leader working on
DEI.
“Something to keep in mind,
especially
from
a
student
perspective, is how much of a
burden this work is for us, for
people of color,” Mang said. “I’m
a first-generation college student
here, first-generation immigrant
as well. And I think that a lot of
my peers, especially in groups like
the Arab Student Association, La
Casa and the Black Student Union
is that along with our school
work, along with our personal
relationships with family and
friends, continuously coming in
day in and day out, putting in this
work trying to be representatives
of our community is a toll and it’s
taxing and its draining.”
Jones responded by saying
Mang is right — it is emotionally
taxing. It’s not fair that she and
other student leaders have this
burden to bear, but it will make
them and the community stronger
in the long run, he said.
“As tragic as it’s going to be to
say,” Jones said. “As hurtful as it’s
going to be to say, by you doing
extra, just like when you go to the
gym, and someone says ‘you have
to pick up the 200 pounds and I’m
going to pick up the 100 pounds.’
That’s not fair, but you’re going to
be stronger tomorrow.”
During
the
event,
Bagenstos talked about the
LGBTQ+ workers’ rights
cases that will be heard in
front of the Supreme Court
on Tuesday. He also gave
a brief history of LGBTQ+
workers’ rights in America
and
discussed
what
arguments can be expected
to be heard at the hearings.
The three cases being
presented to the Supreme
Court tomorrow all involve
people
who
were
fired
from their jobs after their
employers learned of their
sexualities: a case where a
skydiving instructor told
a client he was gay; a case
where
a
social
worker
in Georgia joined a gay
softball league; and lastly
a case in Michigan about
a transgender woman who
wrote
to
her
employer
about her transition.
“Because there is such
widespread discirmination
against gay, lesbian and
transgender
individuals
in
the
workplaces…
in
recent
years
a
number
of
individuals,
lawyers
and activists have sought
to
use
pre-existing
sex
discrimination
laws
to
challenge
this
kind
of
discrimination,” Bagenstos
said.
Bagenstos then gave a
brief history of the pre-
existing sex discrimination
law,
Title
VII
within
the
1964
Civil
Rights
Act,
that
prohibits
racial
discimination
in
employment
and
also
prohibits
sex
discrimination
in
employment.
“Title
VII
wasn’t
something
that
(government
officials)
were going to take very
seriously
in
enforcing,”
Bagenstos said. “It took
a lot of work by feminists
acitivists
and
litigators
over the next several years
to get the government to
take
that
seriously
and
eventually by the late ‘60s,
early ‘70s the EOC and the
Supreme Court and the
lower federal courts began
to take sex discrimination
really seriously and you see
all sorts of major changes
in
sex
discrimination
litigation.”
After giving this brief
history, Bagenstos opened
the room up to questions
regarding Tuesday’s cases.
One
audience
member
asked about the impact the
outcomes of Tuesday’s case
will have on the LGBTQ+
community.
“What’s at stake here is
something that is dramatic
in terms of its effect on
individuals
in
terms
of
saying, look, you have to not
have the sexual orientation
you have or you have to not
have the gender identity
you have if you want to
keep your job,” Bagenstos
said. “There’s a lot at stake
in these court cases.”
Public Policy graduate
student
Kate
Bell,
an
organizer
of
the
event,
spoke to The Daily about
the relevance of this policy
talk in light of the pending
LGBTQ+ cases.
“As
mentioned,
Michigan is one of the
states that currently does
not offer protections in
the workplace for LGBT
individuals and so this is
something that will directly
affect our members who
choose to remain in this
state,” Bell stated.
Another
Public
Policy
graduate student, Monika
Anderson,
commented
on
how
this
policy
talk
broadened
her
understanding
of
the
Supreme Court’s role in
decisions on certain issues.
“The politics of political
appointees to the court can
really shape what direction
we
take
issues
in
this
country,” Anderson said.
“Despite what the general
public of the country may
think, or polling numbers
may show, there’s a lot
of
power
that
Supreme
Court holds, that might not
necessarily always match
what the country is.”
Kate
Bell
emphasized
why this talk and other
policy
talks
organized
by Out in Public are so
essential to students here
at the University.
“Especially at the Ford
School,
unless
you’re
specifically taking a class
on labor, labor policy, you’re
unlikely to hear things like
this,” Bell said. “One of the
main goals for Out in Public
specifically was to have a
space for queer identifying
folks within our program to
come and talk about things,
but also a place to discuss
policies that will directly
impact our lives.”
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
News
Tuesday, October 8, 2019 — 3
DEI
From Page 1
FOLEY
From Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
From Page 1
POLICY
From Page 1
The PUD should
provide public
beenfit, and I
frankly don’t see a
lot of it.