Don’t bitch about Westwood ““
move
Students need to quit bitching about “extremely high
costs” and “mediocre” managerial services of
the apartments in Westwood (Students
deserve home sweet home,” Daily Bruin, Viewpoint, Feb.
27). If students want quality managerial services, they should move
to one of the Sterling Towers on Wilshire and pay $4000 a month, or
if they want cheap housing ““ move to Palms or Mar Vista where
a two-bedroom apartment can be found for $1300.
The truth is that UCLA is located in one of the prime
locations in Los Angeles, and real estate here is very expensive.
Right across Sunset Boulevard is Bel-Air’s $10 million
mansions and across Veteran, four-bedroom houses sell for $1
million. Students should realize it is a privilege to live in such
a prestigious neighborhood where we can breathe fresh air in the
morning, and there isn’t a layer of smoke above our heads
(unlike some unnamed crosstown rival school located near
Downtown), let alone the non-existent crime rate.
Students have no right to point their finger at building
managers and landlords because they are merely running a business;
they provide a service for which we, the students, demand. There is
no monopoly or unfair competition. The prices are at highly
competitive rates, prices at which students are willing to pay for
the convenience of living close to campus. If anything, students
are the ones taking advantage of the landlords through sub-leases
because of rent control laws, cheating them of needed revenue. The
result is that many rent prices are lower than they really should
be, increasing the demand for housing. Because of this economic
disruption, we find housing near campus extremely difficult. They
have no incentive to offer any special managerial treatment because
either the students cannot afford it, or rent prices aren’t
high enough to offer “good services.”
If you’re not happy, please move out, so that I can move
in.
James Kim Second-year Business economics
Selective examples distort truth
This is a response to Andrew Jones’ ignorant accusation of
Elias Enciso’s, La Familia’s, and USAC’s
“squandering” of funds (“USAC
squanders our student fees,” Daily Bruin, Viewpoint, Feb.
25). I, along with Enciso, attended the “Creating
Change” conference and was funded not by USAC, but by the
LGBT Campus Resource Center.
Mr. Jones blatantly picked and chose from the “Creating
Change” conference program to make it seem as if all we did
was go on a vacation to Milwaukee, Wisconsin last November
(Milwaukee in November at 35 degrees being the hot travel spot) to
bring back “the virtues of polyamory or
partner-swapping.” Jones bases his argument on his
narrow-minded beliefs about relationships, among other things.
Who’s to say that we even attended these workshops or that we
believe in what they discussed? And even if we did, what is the
problem with that? Aren’t we all here at UCLA to learn and
grow, not to remain stagnant and narrow-minded? The workshop on
polyamory was there for those who wished to openly discuss the
issue, not for any selling or recruitment of and for polyamory. The
same goes for another workshop that Jones attacked, “Drag
101: How to Turn Kids in Makeup into Kings and Queens.” Why
does Jones take only the title and construe it to be something else
instead of sharing with the Daily Bruin’s readers, the rest
of the workshop description?
If Jones would keep reading, or include what he blatantly
excluded, his article would also include that this workshop was
meant for “youth to explore their gender expression in a safe
environment with the assistance of a gender illusionist and
transgender people.” If my son or daughter felt that they
wanted to explore the opposite gender, would I deny him or her the
chance? Jones obviously would.
Jones and his article speaks nothing but homophobia and
ignorance. If he’s not going to share all the facts, he
should keep his insinuations to himself.
Juan Antonio Guzman La Familia Chair