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