Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, December 3, 2019
Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Grace Hermann
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Mary Rolfes
Michael Russo
Miles Stephenson
Finn Storer
Joel Weiner
Erin White
Lola Yang
FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
Editorial Page Editors
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.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
SUSAN WINEBERG | OP-ED
Save the Huron Street Houses!
I
n
May
2019,
our
neighborhood — the Old
Fourth
Ward
Historic
District — found out that three
houses
within
our
historic
district would be demolished
by the University of Michigan
to make space for a new College
of Pharmacy. We received a
three-day notice of the meeting,
which was held on the Dearborn
campus, making it difficult for us
to attend. I wrote the Board of
Regents instead of attending and
got no response.
Over the past several years,
the University of Michigan has
demolished houses they owned
in the Old Fourth Ward Historic
District. We were upset that even
after the University promised to
consult with our neighborhood
group,
it
demolished
these
houses without warning. Since
announcing plans to demolish
the three houses, the University
has
responded
positively
to
our request for documentation.
When historic buildings are
demolished, they are usually
documented for posterity so
that historical styles, methods
of construction, materials used
and
technologies
employed
can be noted and passed onto
future
generations.
This
documentation is of immense
value to architectural historians.
The houses to be demolished
form the southern border of the
Old Fourth Ward Historic District,
which was established in 1983.
Historic districts are regulated by
the city of Ann Arbor’s Historic
District Commission, but the
University doesn’t have to abide by
these rules, being an independent
body. However, these buildings
are special for architectural and
historical reasons. In addition,
demolition is recognized by many
as unsustainable behavior due
to the amount of energy spent
in both creating the buildings
and the amount of trash that is
sent to our landfills as a result of
demolition. Close to 30 percent
of landfills are composed of
plastic and metal. As we say in
the
preservation
community,
“the greenest building is the one
already standing.”
The histories of the houses
are linked with the University’s
history. The house at the corner
of Huron and Glen was built
in 1895 for Josephine Murfin,
whose son James later became
a University Regent. Murfin
Avenue on North Campus is
named after him. It is a beautiful
example of the Queen Anne style
with some unusual features,
such as the rounded corner
and the triple windows. This
combination of features is rare
in Ann Arbor.
The large limestone building
at
1015
E.
Huron
began
construction in 1905 as the Nu
Sigma Nu Medical Fraternity.
Unlike other fraternities that
moved to Washtenaw, Nu Sigma
Nu remained at this address
until 1965. The building is a
Georgian Colonial style with
a semicircular limestone bay
and a crenelated roofline. Stone
quoins are at every corner,
making it look like a medieval
castle.
The
most
outstanding
building is the house at 1007 E.
Huron. This wooden clapboard
and shingle house is a rare
example of the Shingle style
in Ann Arbor and was built in
1891. It is characterized by its
rounded windows, saw-tooth
shingles and broad expanse of
roof. It still retains its “porte
cochere,” under which ladies
would
descend
from
their
carriages. It was built by Charles
Whitman, who later became
the
State
Commissioner
of
Railroads. Later, it was used by
two different fraternities until
purchased by the University.
Thus, the buildings all have
historical
connections
to
the University and represent
unusual
examples
of
late
19th and early 20th-century
residential
architecture.
Many
other
universities
use buildings like these as
incubators for smaller units on
campus. An article published
on Sept. 4, 2019 in The Daily
revealed that the University
was “centered on enhancing
student life with an emphasis
on sustainability” and that the
University wanted to “bring
the Ann Arbor community and
the University together.” Two
excellent ways to start would
be by respecting our local
historic districts and keeping
more refuse out of the landfill.
In
historic
preservation,
sustainable
preservation
subscribes to the idea that
there are tangible ecological
benefits from reusing already
constructed
buildings.
The
National Trust for Historic
Preservation
notes
that
“historic
preservation
can — and should — be
an
important
component
of
any
effort
to
promote
sustainable development. The
conservation and improvement
of our existing built resources,
including re-use of historic
and older buildings, greening
the existing building stock,
and reinvestment in older and
historic communities, is crucial
to combating climate change.”
The University could also
set a great example by keeping
these buildings in place and
finding another site for the
College of Pharmacy closer
to the medical campus. They
could at least try to find a
place to move these buildings.
In addition, it could consult
with neighborhoods that have
a stake in the outcome of their
projects to facilitate better
town-gown relations. These
actions could be a first step
in showing they are sincere in
their beliefs.
Susan Wineberg is the author
of “Historic Ann Arbor: An
Architectural Guide.”
SAM FOGEL | COLUMN
A prequel to 2020
W
ith
Kentucky
voting blue in its
gubernatorial
election
and
Louisiana
following
in
its
footsteps,
Republican support seems a
little shaky. In the months
leading
up
to
the
2020
presidential
election,
the
outcomes of local and state
races can provide some sort of
prediction to see which party
will come out on top. Looking
at the kind of candidates who
are winning in the South,
presidential
hopefuls
may
look
to
mimic
strategies
used to secure victories in
Louisiana
and
Kentucky.
However, Democrats should
be wary of getting complacent
in the fight for power since
these
races
have
been
extremely close. If anything,
the outcome of these races are
more telling of the anticipated
party struggle for dominance,
especially in key swing states;
Democrats will need to focus
their attention on connecting
with voters and really selling
their candidates.
The win in Louisiana has
been pinned on the success
of voter turnout from African
Americans, but also the ability
of Gov. Jon Bel Edwards to
appeal to a more moderate
audience.
Throughout
the
race for president, some have
speculated whether or not
a more centrist candidate
like former Vice President
Joe Biden would be the best
contender:
someone
who
appeals to Democrats but
also moderate Republicans.
On the other hand, more
liberal
candidates
like
Sen.
Bernie
Sanders,
I-Vt.,
and
Sen.
Elizabeth
Warren, D-Mass., have also
galvanized large followings
with their left-wing policies.
Uniting the people is key for
any candidate to win in a
polarized country. Compared
to 2016, where some voters
abstained
because
they
disliked both candidates or
voted for Donald Trump after
Sanders lost the Democratic
nomination, candidates today
need to focus on showing
strong
leadership
and
drawing in voters. Former
President Barack Obama also
threw in his input, calling on
candidates to stay in touch
with the voter landscape and
stick to fixing issues rather
than revolutionizing them.
Throughout the campaign
trail, the idea of needing to be
the candidate to beat Trump
has been a focal point of what
the candidates believe appeals
to the people. However, being
able to beat Trump stems
from the ability to convince
voters that the candidates can
deliver on their promises and
improve the quality of life
across the nation. Given the
frontrunners are consistently
Biden, Warren and Sanders
— one moderate and two far-
left leaning candidates — they
need to prove that electing one
of them would be significantly
better
than
another
four
years of Trump for everyone.
Despite
visiting
Kentucky
and Louisiana multiple times
in the months leading up to
the elections in both states,
it is evident that Trump’s
influence
lacks
momentum
in
carrying
Republican
politicians in their bids for
election. Democrats were still
able to win despite Trump’s
effort to endorse his party’s
candidates,
hinting
at
a
potential change in the course
of Republican power. While
the president’s influence is
weakening, Democrats need
to fight harder than ever to
keep their progress in red
states going to secure more
victories.
Between the three front
runners, it is hard to tell
who will come out on top:
Biden
takes
on
a
more
moderate stance reflective
of Edwards in Louisiana,
Warren has a plan to reform
multiple issues to improve
the
lives
of
the
middle
class and Sanders has the
recognition and momentum
from his 2016 campaign.
Biden holds the front seat in
most of the polls, but even
Obama has yet to endorse his
former vice president. The
problem with Biden is that
he has yet to come out with
a strong cause to champion
— or maybe that is part of
his moderate narrative. It
may be beneficial for him
to advocate for a specific
issue to gain more traction
with voters so they have
something
concrete
to
associate
him
with.
As
for Warren and Sanders,
their
ambitious
plans
to
completely
eliminate
student debt and provide
Medicare for All sound good
on paper and resonate with
the younger demographic,
but
may
fall
into
the
predicament of being too
revolutionary.
As
the
2020 election approaches,
candidates
need
to
start
refining
their
campaign
tactics to appeal to both
party followers — for the
primaries — and the general
public
for
the
general
election. To avoid a repeat of
2016, the people need to see
the emergence of a strong
leader — one that can unite
both sides on a platform that
resonates with the people.
Alice Lin can be reached at
alicelin@umich.edu.
ALICE LIN | COLUMN
Michael Bloomberg – the folly of a billionaire
W
ith the Democratic
primary
inching
closer with every
passing
day,
the
field
of
candidates has been hard-
pressed to slim down from
the large pool that the race
started with. The three main
candidates that have been
garnering the most attention
are, of course, Sen. Elizabeth
Warren
of
Massachusetts,
former Vice President Joe
Biden
and
Sen.
Bernie
Sanders of Vermont. Some
other notable figures in the
race are Mayor Pete Buttigieg,
entrepreneur Andrew Yang
and Sen. Kamala Harris of
California,
among
others.
I’m sure I don’t have to
name everyone, as the list is
quite lengthy. With so many
candidates fighting for the
nomination, you’d have to
either be cocky or foolish (or
possibly both) to enter now.
That being said, why the
hell is Michael Bloomberg
considering
running
for
president?
His potential bid for the
presidency is a departure
from what he said earlier
this year. In an opinion
piece for Bloomberg News,
Bloomberg
rhetorically
asked readers if he should
“devote the next two years to
talking about my ideas and
record, knowing that I might
never win the Democratic
nomination,” or if he should
“spend the next two years
doubling down on the work
that I am already leading and
funding,” concluding that it
would be more beneficial to
continue the various projects
and initiatives he’s already
running. Why the change of
heart, Michael?
I don’t really know. But
what is known is that Jeff
Bezos, founder and CEO of
Amazon and the wealthiest
man in the world, called
Bloomberg to ask if he’d
be running for president.
And if you know anything
about Bezos, his treatment
of
employees
is
frankly
appalling.
A
mandatory
60-hour
workweek
at
grueling
warehouses,
negligence
in
handling
workplace injury and slashed
bonuses after a slight increase
in wages are all examples of
Amazon’s horrible treatment
of
its
employees.
While
superficially
indicative
of
very little, I’d wager that
there’s a reason Bezos asked
Bloomberg
directly
about
his prospects. If we know
anything from the current
billionaire in office, it’s that
he tends to be lenient when
it comes to income taxes
and accountability for the
rich. With income inequality
reaching five-decade highs
in the United States, many
of the candidates on the
Democratic stage advocate
for
wealth
redistribution.
Bloomberg, with a history
of
favoring
privatization,
may win the favor of the
ultra-rich and elites, but
is absolutely not what the
party needs at the moment.
Speaking
of
income
inequality,
it
went
unaddressed in New York
City under Bloomberg. As
New York recovered from
the
attacks
on
9/11,
he
adopted policies that helped
assist the city in its plight.
He built and preserved over
165,000 units of affordable
housing,
which
is
an
admirable feat. It all sounds
fine and dandy until you
look at the real effects of his
policies. Median rents rose
in New York by 19 percent
in real dollars between 2002
and 2011, and the homeless
population in shelters rose
from less than 30,000 to
upwards of 50,000. Nearing
the end of his tenure as mayor
in 2011, the median income
for the bottom fifth of New
Yorkers dropped to $8,844.
In contrast, the households
in
the
top
fifth
earned
$223,285. The Association
for Neighborhood & Housing
Development
found
that
one-third of housing was
unaffordable
for
local
residents.
Unsurprisingly,
this led to an epidemic of
gentrification
that
forced
many NYC natives out of
their neighborhoods. Sasha
Zena, a New York resident,
said in an interview with
The New York Times that
Bloomberg “smothered the
bohemian creative heartbeat
of New York City, trading
it for luxury housing by
giving
luxury
developers
huge tax incentives.” With
the concerns of increasing
inequality
growing
ever-
pervasive in the collective
consciousness, Bloomberg is
anything but a working-class
champion. As someone who
is vying to be an alternative
to Trump and his policies,
Bloomberg doesn’t seem all
too different when it comes
to caring about the lower
class. He is absolutely not
what the Democrats need.
There
are
some
other
concerns that I could bring up
about Bloomberg. He’s been
noted to be casually sexist
and objectifying of his female
employees. Four women have
filed
sexual
harassment
claims against Bloomberg.
Crude remarks about him
wanting
to
“do”
female
coworkers and various other
instances of “locker room
talk” are reminiscent of the
orange despot he wants to
dethrone. There’s also his
support of the infamously
racist
“stop-and-frisk”
policy used by the New
York
Police
Department.
As
recently
as
January
this
year,
he’s
gone
on
record in favor of the racial
profiling method of policing
streets. The practice was
ruled
unconstitutional
in
2013 in Floyd v. the City
of New York for violating
both
the
Fourth
and
Fourteenth
Amendments
(for unreasonable searches
and racial discrimination,
respectively).
Only
just
recently has he apologized,
but it’s a paltry attempt at
amends. It’s clearly meant to
try and address the criticisms
he has garnered before his
campaign starts in full. He
is now six years out of office
and believed in his policy up
until just months ago. It’s a
shallow and transparently
phony apology. For somebody
who is thought of as a “social
liberal,” he certainly seems to
be in conflict with the ideals
of social justice. Intrinsic
to social justice is the need
to fight for marginalized
groups and their rights, and
he has shown himself to not
really care at all. Bloomberg
can say whatever he wants,
but actions speak louder than
words.
Bloomberg
is
obviously
confident enough in himself
to run for president and
represent
the
Democratic
Party. He is so confident that
he believes he can win despite
missing
several
deadlines
for
states
such
as
New
Hampshire.
He
emanates
a
sense
of
billionaire
entitlement,
seeming
to
think that somehow, having
money makes you worthy of
the Oval Office. However,
I want to stress that he
is
remarkably
similar
to
Donald Trump — much more
than
many
people
think.
They’re
both
completely
separated from the American
populace by virtue of being
billionaires, raise suspicion
in their treatment of women
and actively support policies
that
worsen
the
already
enormous gap between the
rich and the poor. He is a
rich white billionaire — just
another plutocrat in it for
himself. He isn’t the right
candidate for a party that is
supposed to represent the
marginalized
citizens
of
our republic. Don’t let him
convince you he is.
Sam Fogel can be reached at
samfogel@umich.edu.
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds.
Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 550
to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to
tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
The University
could also set a
great example
by keeping these
buildings in place
Democrats will
need to focus
their attention on
connecting with
voters
Bloomberg can
say whatever he
wants, but actions
speak louder than
words