Ettekal is a third-year biology and political science
student.
By Yashar Ettekal
Last Thursday’s debate between candidates for the Los
Angeles City Council’s fifth district attracted the enormous
sum of about 20 UCLA students. But, once you discount those forced
to show up because they were sponsoring the event, there were a
good three UCLA students who somehow found their way to the debate
and cared enough about their civic duties to actually listen.
This sort of turnout is pretty good considering that people aged
18-24 make up only 8.4 percent of the Westwood voting block. And
since most UCLA students fall into the 18-24 age bracket and we are
also essentially non-voters, it is also not surprising that the
debate ignored any issues of real interest to UCLA.
The candidates all knew that we do not vote (much less know
there is an election around the corner) and so they exerted almost
no energy addressing issues affecting UCLA. The only exception was
Tom Hayden, whom I’ll get back to later.
What more can you expect when the candidates in the room
outnumber the constituents? This lack of enthusiasm by the UCLA
students was a great break for the candidates. Without irksome
students complaining about things like rent control, transportation
or a lack of a college community, candidates can pander to the
needs of real voters like the Sherman Oaks or Westwood homeowners
associations. The fifth district is a big place so the fewer people
making noise, the better.
 Illustration by JARRETT QUON/Daily Bruin For the past
couple of years, Mike Feurer has been “representing”
UCLA at the L.A. City Council and he has generally ignored the
existence of the campus. Through the Westwood Village Specific
Plan, the needs of the campus have been overlooked in favor of the
needs of people who want to dine at Eurochow. Rent control which
actually exists in the Municipal Code (Sec. 151) is not enforced
nor are any attempts made to tighten the noose around landlords who
milk profits out of students.
The issue of parking and transportation which almost all
students care about is not dealt with except for the token Bruin
Go! program. The only transportation issue discussed is the
feasibility of building one parking lot versus another, while the
idea of expanding Bruin Go! to cover areas served by the Culver
City bus lines or the MTA is ignored. The lack of discussion when
it comes to these issues is a direct result of our
non-participation.
Since we do not even care about issues that affect us, neither
do the majority of the candidates. Most of the candidates running
for this seat want dialogue with the campus only so long as it will
get them votes, otherwise they will be as oblivious to the 60,000
people here as Feurer was.
Candidate Jack Weiss claims he can represent UCLA because he was
born at our hospital. Whether or not you vote for him, he will not
serve our needs because he has no real connection to the campus nor
does he want one. Others like Laura Lake have taught here so they
claim to know how to best serve our needs. She has occasionally
worked on issues like affordable housing but there is little to
show for her efforts. She too does not seem to see UCLA as an asset
to Los Angeles.
Joe Connolly, who gained fame because of his manic war on
graffiti, wants to solve our problems by getting rid of the gang
infestation in Westwood (yeah, I haven’t seen any
“gangs” around here either, but Connolly knows best).
The other candidates do not even claim that they will do anything
for us, with the notable exception of Tom Hayden who sees the real
value of UCLA and wants to go out of his way to uncover the many
contributions the campus makes to Los Angeles.
Hayden doesn’t need to claim a connection like walking his
dog on campus once a month because he has done much more during his
tenure at the state senate. He is the only candidate who wants to
ensure that the city of Los Angeles recognizes how much UCLA gives
to the L.A. community in terms of healthcare, business and policy
research.
During his 18 years at the state senate, Hayden has actually
affected life at UCLA because he served on the Higher Education
committee of the senate and knows the issues that affect all our
lives. He fought against Pete Wilson’s rampant tuition
increases and brought money to Los Angeles for conservation and L.
A. river projects. Hayden’s record on all issues affecting
Angelinos is stellar and that is why he deserves the vote of all 15
of us who are registered voters.
Everybody in the race, even Connolly who lives in his own world,
has good intentions, but few have the expertise in the political
maneuvering required of a politician downtown. Hayden spent many
years dealing with lobbyists and special interests but still
produced good results. While candidates such as Lake and Weiss talk
a lot about change, only Hayden can claim a proven record of
success.
Even with a councilman like Hayden in office, the campus needs
to show everybody that we are interested in having an open dialogue
about issues concerning UCLA. Last week’s dismal turnout does
not send the message that we are serious about change. I have not
met a student yet who does not complain about parking, public
transportation, housing costs or even a place to dance in Westwood.
But for some reason when it comes time to debate and cast votes,
the meeting halls and polls are empty.
People either need to become completely complacent with
everything around us that is wrong, or they need to voice their
opinions. Complaining behind closed doors about gridlock on the 405
will not fix anything, but casting a vote for someone who wants to
fix things the way you want to will definitely solve some
problems.