S
ince it was first founded,
the
University
of
Michigan’s
Graduate
Employees’
Organization
has
persistently
pushed
boundaries
and moved the University forward.
With its fierce advocacy for graduate
student rights, the union has played
a critical role in shaping campus
conversations and leading cultural
change. Unfortunately, however, the
past three years have seen this once
illustrious organization devolve into
chaos.
After the University made an
extreme effort to reduce learning
loss by bringing undergraduates
back to campus in 2020 during the
COVID-19 pandemic, GEO launched
a strike in favor of remote classes.
Despite the University’s rigid safety
measures and ready availability of
testing, GEO made the decision to
go on strike, putting them at odds
with both U-M administration and
concerned undergraduates hoping for
an in-person classroom experience.
Since then, GEO has continued to
push unreasonable proposals that
have damaged the credibility of the
organization.
Most
recently,
GEO
made
headlines
through
its
extreme
demands during ongoing contract
negotiations with the University. With
the organization asking for a $14,500
raise to the minimum stipend for
graduate student instructors and a cap
on section sizes, and a caucus within
it supporting the abolition of the
Division of Public Safety and Security,
GEO’s demands leave little room for
compromise and risk starting another
strike as the May 1 deadline for a new
contract approaches.
Perhaps the most curious aspect
of the current round of contract
negotiations is GEO’s demand for a
“living wage.” To date, this demand
has been the focal point of the
organization’s campaign, with GEO
marketing that graduate students
are paid only 62% Ann Arbor’s
living wage of $38,537. This claim
is misguided at best and deceitful
at worst. With the typical graduate
student working approximately 16-20
hours a week and being paid a median
hourly wage of around $35 an hour,
students are making almost double
Ann Arbor’s living hourly wage of
$18.67 an hour.
Furthermore, GSIs receive up
to about $13,000 or $26,000 in
tuition subsidies, depending on their
in-state residency. These subsidies
significantly lower the burden of
student debt and combined with the
typical GSI salary bring their total
compensation from a part-time role
above the full-time Ann Arbor living
wage.
Despite their already high pay,
GEO is demanding a $14,500 raise
to their minimum stipend for 2,300
GSIs. This figure would cost the
University over $30 million per year.
This demand seems both irrational
and unnecessary. Ultimately, while
GSIs play a critical role on campus
through their positions as instructors,
they are first and foremost students.
Like any other degree, pursuing
a graduate degree is a long-term
investment in future earning — not a
path meant to immediately maximize
salary.
When asked for comment on this
matter, GEO President Jared Eno
responded that while subsidies and
other benefits help lighten the load
financially, “Tuition waivers don’t
pay the bills.” Citing that “8 in 10
grad workers are rent-burdened, 1in
6 aren’t confident they could handle
an unexpected $500 expense, and
1 in 10 worry that they can’t afford
enough food to eat,” Eno summarized
many of the real struggles graduate
students face. Yet, rather than
arbitrarily
increasing
salary
for
all students, a more worthwhile
approach would be to provide need-
based rent and food assistance. By
expanding these targeted programs,
the University could address the
most pressing concerns of GEO
without
inflating
already
high
salaries. Such an approach would
ensure that GEO members could live
comfortably without financial strain,
yet still compensate them fairly for
their positions as part-time student
workers.
Wednesday, February 22, 2023 — 9
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Debates
on the
Diag
A
September article in
The Michigan Daily
called for the end of
single-family zoning in Ann
Arbor. The author, Lydia Storella,
cites several reasons to end the
zoning category. Her first reason
is the racist origins of single-
family zoning. Storella continues
by saying that single-family zoning
raises rent prices by forcing fewer
residents to bear the high cost
of land in Ann Arbor. Third, she
points out that single-family zoning
is single-use zoning, separating
residents from the services that
they frequent.
I echo Storella’s sentiments, but
why stop there? The ills of single-
family zoning also apply to other
kinds of zoning. They prevent
a wider array of housing types
from providing for more people
and creating a more dynamic
community. I am not suggesting a
rubber factory be built at the end of
your street, or the end of industrial
and residential separation, but it is
time for a new approach to how we
look at our cities, one that does not
try to fit them within the bounds of
zoning codes that span hundreds of
pages.
Ann Arbor has already made
strides
against
single-family
zoning. In 2021, Ann Arbor
approved new regulations for
accessory dwelling units in the
city. Critics of the plan say that
this
measure
constitutes
an
elimination of single-family zoning
— in theory, the approximately
22,350 dwellings impacted under
this new policy would no longer be
restricted to one family per lot. In
effect, however, this has not been
the case. Since 2016, only 34 ADUs
have been permitted in the city,
according to Brett Lenart, planning
manager for the city of Ann Arbor.
Eliminating single-family zoning
would be a significantly more
drastic change, yet it would do
little to get over the real-world
difficulties of building multi-unit
dwellings.
Minneapolis
recently
eliminated single-family zoning,
permitting a triplex in all zones
that previously only allowed one
unit. But in the first two years
without single-family zoning in the
city, only 97 units were permitted
that previously would have been
prohibited. Storella points out that
the artificial constriction of supply
is what keeps an upward pressure
on rents in Ann Arbor. Yet, in other
cities, the elimination of single-
family zoning has largely not
appeared to help.
Storella also cites the end of
single-family zoning in California
in 2021. California’s bill was
transformative, and a sign that
housing policy reform has come
a long way. But recent research
from the University of California,
Berkeley
found
that
new
construction activity in the first
year after the bill’s passage was
extremely minimal.
What
comes
after
the
elimination
of
single-family
zoning is another big question that
remains mostly unanswered. Some
cities have rezoned the affected
parcels to allow three or four units,
but those numbers are ultimately
arbitrary. In Ann Arbor, there is
no guarantee that up-zoning a
parcel from single-family zoning
to a denser designation would even
work to increase supply and put
downward pressure on rents.
On top of that, Ann Arbor’s
most common multifamily zoning
code is plagued with issues that
artificially restrict the supply of
housing. City staff have referred
to this code, R4C, as “broken.”
Ann Arbor underwent a four-year
process to overhaul R4C, but that
effort ultimately broke down due to
disputes over several technicalities.
At the time of that process, 83% of
structures zoned R4C were non-
conforming. According to Lenart,
only nine new structures were
allowed under the theoretically
denser R4C zoning code in the past
10 years. The issues with zoning
are not relegated to the single-
family flavor: they afflict all kinds
of zoning.
In addition, getting rid of single-
family zoning won’t get rid of the
myriad of other rules that currently
restrict the development of more
types of housing in Ann Arbor.
Height limits, minimum setbacks,
density limits, floor-area ratios
and other requirements imposed
on new construction further limit
the ability of more “liberal” zoning
ordinances to actually be more
liberal.
In his book “Arbitrary Lines,”
urban planning scholar M. Nolan
Gray writes that zoning “works
principally by what it prevents
rather than by what it causes.”
Why should planning limit itself
to being a system that prohibits,
instead of a system that creates
and provides? Zoning definitely
hasn’t been providing for Ann
Arbor. All of Ann Arbor’s most
lovable
neighborhoods
predate
zoning, which has only been on
the books since 1923. Zoning is the
reason why City Place, a large, car-
oriented, suburban-style garden
apartment
complex
on
South
Fifth Avenue, exists instead of the
elegant Heritage Row proposal that
would have blended the historic
with the contemporary by adding
new
apartments
behind
nine
meticulously
preserved
homes
dating back to the 19th century.
The basis of zoning has been
to exclude. Not to exclude safety
or environmental hazards from
residential neighborhoods, but to
delineate class, separate race and
force an inequitable system on the
public.
Justice
George
Sutherland,
authoring the 6-3 majority opinion
in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty
Company, the Supreme Court
opinion that legalized zoning,
writes that “the apartment house
is a mere parasite.” Apartments, he
explains, “take advantage” of the
commons, ruining their residential
surroundings. Ending the modern
system of zoning as we know it
does not mean the end of urban
planning, nor the beginning of an
era where factories get built next
to elementary schools. Rather,
the end of zoning is the hopeful
beginning of a more intelligent
era, one that is more egalitarian
and one that is more focused on
creating a built environment that
allows people to live how they’d
like and where they’d like.
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.
SHANNON STOCKING
AND KATE WEILAND
Co-Editors in Chief
QUIN ZAPOLI AND
JULIAN BARNARD
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
Ammar Ahmad
Julian Barnard
Brandon Cowit
Jess D’Agostino
Ben Davis
Shubhum Giroti
Devon Hesano
Jack Kapcar
Sophia Lehrbaum
Olivia Mouradian
Siddharth Parmar
Rushabh Shah
Zhane Yamin
Nikhil Sharma
Lindsey Spencer
Evan Stern
Anna Trupiano
Jack Tumpowsky
Alex Yee
Quin Zapoli
JULIA VERKLAN AND
ZOE STORER
Managing Editors
Why stop at ending single-family
zoning? End all zoning in Ann Arbor
Opinion
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
GEO’s contract demands are
unreasonable and extravagant
ABDULRAHMAN ATEYA
Opinion Columnist
NIKHIL SHARMA
Opinion Columnist
Design by Haylee Bohm
Tuesday, March 7, 2023
Join the celebration:
Symposium • Ceremony
Community Reception
Free and open to the public.
For complimentary tickets and
event details, visit:
myumi.ch/inauguration
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
Stress relief