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