Election Section

Ann and Dean Metzger’s op-ed “Why UCB Should Follow the Lead Of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor” (Daily Planet, March 4-7) was very frustrating. It begins in the first two paragraphs by seeming to seek a middle ground in the present fight between the City of Berkeley and UC Berkeley by examining the relationship of Ann Arbor, Mich. to the University of Michigan (UM). After those two paragraphs though, the article takes a different tone, implying that UM bends over backwards for Ann Arbor and thereby implies that UCB should act likewise. Worse though than the articles faux-unbiased stance, is that it is based on a false premise. Namely that Ann Arbor and Berkeley are in similar situations. Having spent roughly four years living in both cities, I feel I am qualified to point out the failings in the Metzgers’ premise. 

Before I proceed, I will admit my own bias in this situation. If you are uninterested in such, proceed directly to the next paragraph. I do not feel that UCB is innocent in the town-gown fight, but I feel the City of Berkeley holds the greater guilt in the current incarnation. Whomever the instigators of the situation, the town is taking it to the higher level (by way of litigation). The thing that separates Berkeley from El Cerrito, Richmond, and Oakland is not physical proximity in the San Francisco Bay Area, but the presence of a top tier university. That university is a good thing for Berkeley, and it should be helped to grow instead of being forced to stagnate (as stagnating things often quickly become dying things). So as I see it, it comes down to a fight where UCB seeks to continue its growth while the City of Berkeley seeks for it to maintain the status quo (if not become less intrusive). That being said, I shall proceed to point out the differences between Ann Arbor and Berkeley. 

The first difference between the situation of the two universities can be seen through an examination of the layout of UM (www.umich.edu/~info/maps.html). A quick study reveals that Ann Arbor has ample physical space for UM to expand. UM’s north campus in particular is sparse in a way that Berkeley simply cannot be. Without any deep search, I am aware of the construction of a life sciences building, a computer science building, and more dormitory space on campus that did not require the demolition of existing housing or parking all within the last five years. With as much breathing room as UM has, comparing its relationship with Ann Arbor to that of UCB and Berkeley is like comparing apples and oranges. 

A second point of comparison is the local populations attitudes towards college football. Its a reality of modern society that college football is big business. A successful college football program can pay for a university’s entire athletic department (such as UM). In Ann Arbor, people know this. Every fall Saturday with a home game results in some 110,000 people coming to Ann Arbor for the football game. This isn’t a huge problem though, since the like has been happening for years now (Michigan hasn’t had a losing football season in over 30 years). The high school kitty-corner to the stadium never bothered to develop on a large tract of its land since it can use this land for parking (and at $10 a spot as of four years ago, they can do well). Other parts of the surrounding area have adapted to thrive off the numbers attending each game. With a strong alumni presence in the south eastern Michigan area, it’s not hard to see why Ann Arbor is happy to have the masses come out each week for the game. Now compare to Berkeley, where the recent increase of crowds to around 70,000 have turned the locals into a raging frenzy. From the comments I read in the press, it seems the Berkeley locals would rather that the football team draw no one at all. The gapping differences in how these towns react to college football makes comparisons between the cities irrelevant. 

A third difference between Ann Arbor and Berkeley is the make up of the population living immediately adjacent to campus. Throughout my time in Ann Arbor, the only times I would run into people without a current tie to the university would be when I traveled miles out of my way to get away from campus. Even recent graduates I knew wishing to continue living in Ann Arbor would move away from the campus. Its simply understood that student housing should be close to campus, and that only students would really want to live in it. Compare this to Berkeley, where students can’t even afford to live in apartments just a block or two from the northern border of campus. As a result, in Berkeley, students must constantly move around near the homes of locals, making neither happy. Sure its easy for Michigan and Ann Arbor to get along well in comparison to Berkeley and UCB. The town is laid out so that they don’t get in each others’ ways. 

Finally, when considering the Metzgers’ article, it is important to note the differences in California’s budgetary methods. Thanks to Proposition 13, California significantly reduces the property tax revenue it should take in. As a result, people are motivated to stay in homes on valuable land. When the land’s value has been arbitrarily inflated by the presence of a premiere public university, this creates undue resentment against the university. Michigan is not held down by any similar laws. This and other points of California’s tax law makes the comparison between Ann Arbor and Berkeley invalid. 

For these reasons, the Metzgers’ article makes an irrelevant point. Sure, UM gives money to Ann Arbor, but that says nothing about how UCB and Berkeley should interact. There is one point the article does make though, and that is this: “Just because you find some facts on the Internet, it doesn’t mean you understand the situation.” 

Daniel Schonberg is a Berkeley resident.?