• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

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