(
editorial
lease is a lease,
but rent is rent
The ASUO Off-Campus Housing Office this week is
alerting students about rental agreements and leases. Es
sentially, the warning says “consumer beware,” when
signing a lease or rental agreement.
The most important difference between 30-day ag
reements and a lease is that rent cannot be raised by the
apartment owner while a lease is in effect. The same
protection does not exist for 30-day agreements. If a land
lord wishes to raise your rent for your next 30-day agree
ment, it’s legal with 30-days notice.
But over and above the consumer beware notice
about leases, students are also concerned about the
amount of money they’re paying in rent. One classified ad
in the Emerald earlier this read like this: “One-bedroom
apartment. Short person necessary because of low ceil
ings.” The rent was $150 per month.
There is a housing shortage in Eugene now; the va
cancy rate in housing is about five per cent. That rate is
more severe than what the federal government officially
terms a housing shortage. Where’s the money going?
Well, according to one Eugene landlord, it’s not going
into the landlord’s pockets. He says the housing shortage
is here now partly because banks are reluctant to loan
money to apartment owners. The reason: money lenders
think rents are too low in Eugene to ensure a return on the
loan. Banks currently charge nine and three-quarters per
cent on loans to apartment owners, and that’s where a lot
of the money goes.
Another bite out of your monthly rent check goes to
taxes, according to the landlord. About 17-20 per cent of
the revenue gathered from renters goes to various taxes,
both state and federal. Other bites are taken out by man
agement, maintenance and advertising.
But to the typical student, this is small consolation for
the rent. Currently, the average rent for a one-bedroom
apartment is about $150. The going rate for a two-bedroom
apartment is about $200 per month.
With those rates, a call for rent control sometimes
comes up, but usually has no support in political arenas.
Land owners claim that with rent controls, they would not
be able to maintain apartments and still make a profit. In
addition, they argue that rent controls may actually aggra
vate a shortage.
So the Off-Campus Housing Office’s attempt to alert
tenants to the intricacies of leases and rent agreements is
laudable. In terms of leases and short-term agreements,
the market is truly one of “let the buyer beware.” But in
terms of the amount of rent you pay, it’s “let the buyer
suffer.”
etters
History clarified
The letter appearing in the
January 9, issue of the Emerald
contains errors concerning the Vil
lard gift, Villard Hall and the type of
institution that the University was
prior to 1881, the year of the first
Villard gift.
The origin of the University was
not religious — in fact, its Charter
barred any test for religious beliefs
and discrimination because of sex
or race. It was from the start a
state institution. The curriculum
was limited to classical, literary
and scientific courses. It did not
offer any classes in religion.
Henry Villard gave the Univer
sity a sum of $7,000 in 1881 to aid
in payment of a debt left over from
the construction of the first build
ing on the campus — Deady Hall.
Deady Hall was constructed from
private funds raised by Eugene
and Lane County citizens, how
ever, the funds raised were not
sufficient to pay the full cost of
construction. In 1881, five years
after Deady Hail was opened to
students, a number of creditors
presented their requests for pay
ment. The faculty, citizens of
Eugene and Lane County initiated
a campaign to pay the debt.
Henry Viliard, in New York, read
of the financial difficulties and of
fered to pay the debt in a telegram
to Judge Matthew P. Deady, Pres
ident of the Board of Regents for
the State University of Oregon.
Deady informed Viliard as to how
much Deady thought was needed
and Viliard responded with the
sum of $7,000. This was not suffi
cient to pay the debt in full, but the
amount raised locally and the Vil
iard money did satisfy the cre
ditors.
Viliard came to the University in
the fall of 1881 and immediately
stated that he would give the Uni
versity $1,000 to aid in laying the
foundation for a library, $1,000 to
aid in the purchase of equipment
for the physical and chemical de
partment, fund a chair in English
literature for one year, and give six
$50 scholarships to the most
meritorious students at the Uni
versity. In 1883 he gave the Uni
versity $50,000 in first mortage
bonds on the Northern Pacific
Railroad, provided that at least
$400 per year of the interest
earned be devoted to the en
largement of the library.
The State Legislature, in Feb
ruary 1885, gave the University
$30,000 to construct a second
building on the campus. This
building was completed in 1886
and by a vote of the Board of Re
gents was named Villard Hall in
honor of the first benefactor of the
University, Henry Villard.
It was the first building on cam
pus to be named. Deady Hall was
referred to as “The Building,”
“The University,” and after the
construction of Villard, Deady was
called “The Old Building.” In
March 1893 Judge Deady died
and the Board of Regents voted to
name the old building in his honor.
Keith Richard
University Archivist
Letters policy
The Emerald will accept and try
to print all letters and opinion col
umns containing fair comment on
ideas and topics of concern or in
terest to the University community.
Letters and opinions will be run on
a fiist-come first-served basis.
Wswisaid/wim imi msgmaiumuduxs mmtww
Mo.vMMor,Bcss...>&,nowidrinktgqmuch...■but...
-opinion--—
India’s Desai should determine his own destiny
Submitted by
Ozodi Osuji
Graduate, Political Science
The editorial opinion “India
shouldn’t touch Tar Baby” (ODE
Jan. 6, 1978) appears to be well
meaning. India, a country “where
45 per cent of the population lives
in the squalor of poverty and
where 50 million people are un
employed" could do better than
embark on the expensive luxury of
nuclear arms race. It could chan
nel the resources aimed at arms
production to agricultural de
velopment so as to feed her
burgeoning population. All things
being equal, of course.
There is a snag, however. All
things are never equal. We are
living in a world of power politics.
The self-proclaimed mighty strive
to dominate the weak, and fall into
self-righteous rage when their
whims and dictates are not
obeyed. It is reported that Presi
dent Carter was irritated and
angered by Premier Moraji
Desai's rather courageous and
adamant insistence that no exter
na! authority dictate to India how
best to allocate its resources. Un
daunted by Desai's surprising as
sertion of independence, Carter
has said that he will send a “cold
Piicrp d
and blunt” communique to Desai
to encourage him to cooperate
with halting the spread of nuclear
weapons.
In other words, the President is
resolved to influence India’s
domestic politics. (It must be
borne in mind that the Carter
Desai dialogue was not meant for
public consumption. It was by ac
cident that a pressman taped this
“bullying” session and thus di
vulged the secret). Perhaps the
episode is indicative of the pres
sure western leaders bring to bear
on developing countries’ leaders
in private, while appearing friendly
in public.
The question that suggests it
self is: why did the president lose
his composure at Desai's insis
tence on deciding his country’s
destiny, given that he is the duly
elected leader of India and not
Carter? One could answer this
question in several ways. For in
stance, the President’s belief in
humanity is so intense that he
couldn’t bear to see Desai ignor
ing the starving masses on the
streets of Bombay, New Dehli,
etc while devoting the scarce re
sources of India to nuclear
weapons.
Another possiblity is much more
subtle and speculative. Could it be
that the President had expected to
be listened to, to be obeyed, to be
feared? A man does not easily get
angry when his equal insists on
doing his own thing. Anger is usu
ally provoked when one assumes
that the other ought to have done
as we desired or lived up to our
dictates. Anger betrays an un
equal relationship.
Now, psychological specula
tions aside, has the encounter
some political revelations? To be
apparently frustrated because
another head of state insists on
self determination and to threaten
to even send him a blunt com
munique (read, reminding Desai
of India’s dependency on foreign
aid and hence necessity of kow
towing — or else.) is Bismarkian.
While western powers can go
ahead and produce nuclear
weapons and thus have the whole
world at ransom — the nonwest
ern world must be prevented from
doing so. Of course we have the
age-old rationalization. They (the
world) are too poor, and should
face the business of feeding
themselves first, that is, if they are
rational; otherwise they are “reck
less” and unreasonable.
Desai rightly argued “that the
US should follow its own rhetoric
in calling for nuclear disarmament
before foisting its views on other
nations.” This is a crucial test of
sincerity of intent. Refusal to fol
low it leaves us with no other al
ternative but to suspect deceit.
However, it could be argued that
the US/west have a higher proba
bility of preventing accidents in the
nuclear business, given their
highly developed technology. Ra
tional? Well, the technological ar
gument could be a specious
strategy masking a double stan
dard approach — the idea that
some people are more like chil
dren and therefore cannot be en
trusted with complex respon
sibilities.
It is worthwhile to observe that
while calling on India to give up its
nuclear intentions in the spirit of
preventing nuclear proliferations,
the very apostles of peace and
human rights have actually sold
and built nuclear plants in South
Africa. Yes, the public is given the
impression that the South Afri
cans are engaging in that venture
by themselves. Actually, it does
not take much thinking to realize
that the international corporations
making astronomical profits via
cheap African labor have pre
vailed on the western powers to
build nuclear weapons in South
Africa as a means of safeguard
ing their economic interests. The
rising demand for equal political
participation by all the peoples of
South Africa, they figure, must be
dampened by the threat of nuclear
annihilation.
In conclusion, it is my view that
as long as some human beings
wield weapons, the rest of us are
neither truly free nor safe. Control
of the means of coercion has al
ways been the most effective
means of dictating obedience
domestically or in foreign rela
tions. Depending on the ' good in
tentions” of the armed man to
safeguard our lives, is a mis
guided illusion. True indepen
dence for India, or for that matter
any third world country, is to pos
sess those means of force which
can enable them to protect their
territory and sovereignty from ex
ternal arrogant interventions. Cost
is irrelevant when national survi
val is at stake.
A better but less feasible al
ternative is complete disarma
ment. In the meantime, Moraji
Desai has as much right as any to
engage in the race for mutual
self-destruction.