In a move sure to draw the ire of students at two of the state’s largest universities, administrators at both Virginia Tech and James Madison University recently enacted policies to notify parents about their child’s first alcohol offense — even for students older than 18 years of age.

In an open letter to JMU students, President Linwood Rose cited his concern for “the abuse and underage use of alcohol by some of our students” and indicated that new drinking policies are aimed at changing perceptions of a “negative drinking culture” at JMU. Last April, throngs of students and visitors attending JMU’s annual “Springfest” party had to be dispersed by tear gas from riot police after the crowd quickly became unruly and began damaging the surrounding property with beer bottles.

Virginia Tech instituted a similar parent notification policy last January. No high-profile incidences of disorderly conduct drove school officials to enact the policy. Edward Spencer, Virginia Tech’s vice president for student affairs, commented in an interview with The Washington Post that “students are more concerned about their parents being notified than they are of the legal consequences.” That may not be the case, but adding consequences like parental notification probably does have at least some deterrence effect. The issue becomes whether this effect is worth compromising the notion that 18-,19- and 20-year-old students are adults who should face the outcomes of their decisions without involving parents.

Dean of Students Allen Groves stated that the University does not automatically inform parents of students’ indiscretions on the first incident; the matter is typically dealt with internally by deans or in the Office of Resident Life, and parents are only notified if a pattern of severe conduct ensues. The University’s reluctance to notify parents seems to be in deference to the idea that although combating underage and excessive drinking is a top concern, so is ensuring that students are accountable and responsible for their own actions. Clearly there are consequences for being caught breaking the law or violating University policy, as should be the case, but the University is correct to treat students as adults. Parents who finance their child’s education could argue that they have a right to such information, but that claim seems tenuous unless the student’s violation is severe enough to threaten his enrollment or performance as a student.

The University may not be in as much hot water as some other college are in terms of public perception of its drinking culture, but the situation used to be more somber. Sandy Gilliam, University History and Protocol Officer and former secretary to the Board of Visitors, said Easters weekend — a large-scale annual spring party held by University students — continued until the late 1970s but “was abolished by administrators after the police couldn’t control it any longer.” Gilliam acknowledged that several factors have contributed to a shift in the University’s image over time, including the drinking age rising from 18 to 21, tougher academic standards — “you could no longer get by with a gentleman’s ‘C’” — and a greater enforcement by police of open-container laws. University administrators and law enforcement also made additional efforts to limit underage and excessive alcohol consumption during the past few decades.

Part of being treated like adults is making sure that situations do not get out of control and warrant a more heavy-handed approach by the University to regulate student behavior. To be cliché: Students have, and must continue, to earn the respect given to them by administrators. Only that will ensure that policies similar to those at JMU and Virginia Tech do not find their ways into University protocol.

One of the most fascinating recent phenomena in merican politics has been the rise to national prominence of the right-wing conservative force known as the Tea Party. Observers have categorized this group in a variety of different ways, from principled opponents of enlarged government to racist reactionaries who refuse to accept the legitimacy of an African-American president. This heated debate about the nature of the movement came to a head last week when conservative commentator Glenn Beck led a Tea Party rally at the Lincoln Memorial, the site where Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his famous “I Have a Dream Speech” on the same day in 1963. As racially and politically provocative as its event may have been, however, the Tea Party insists that it welcomes diversity and has the interests of all Americans at heart when it protests liberal governance and progressive social change. Before accepting such a claim, however, it is worth looking objectively at the demographic make-up the Tea Party and what sorts of policies those people are actually advocating. Upon doing so, it becomes strikingly evident that while the members of the Tea Party may harbor no explicit animus toward minorities and the poor, they nonetheless promote a political agenda that would have many of the same effects on those groups as would policies of explicit discrimination.

To understand why the Tea Party supports such a narrow-minded platform, it is first necessary to consider the group’s demographic makeup. The best source for such information is a comprehensive poll that was published by The New York Times and CBS News last April. This survey found that contrary to its members’ claims of diversity, the Tea Party is whiter and wealthier than the American populace as a whole. A full 89 percent of those who classified themselves as members of the Tea Party also self-identified as white, while only eight percent considered themselves non-white. In comparison, 77 percent of the survey’s full sample was white and 21 percent was non-white. Furthermore, while 56 percent of Tea Party respondents earn over $50,000 in annual income, only 44 percent of the entire sample fit this criterion.

Thus, it should not come as a surprise that the Tea Party agenda is oriented toward primarily advancing the interests of wealthy white citizens. The group often obscures this fact by couching its rhetoric in terms of the federal budget deficit and the Constitution, but one can see past this fairly easily by comparing its positions on matters related to its own interests with those pertaining to the interests of citizens at the other end of the socioeconomic spectrum. For example, the Tea Party often criticizes government spending on programs such as unemployment benefits and the health insurance subsidies that were included in the recently passed health care reform law. These policies primarily assist low- to middle-income Americans, many of whom are minorities and are struggling due to pressures brought upon them by the state of the American economy. Yet the Tea Party largely ignores farm subsidies that have cost the federal government over $245 billion since 1995, according to the Environmental Working Group, because they mostly benefit major agricultural businesses that are part of the corporate upper class. Similarly, homeownership tax breaks that the president’s latest budget projects will cost more than $131 billion in 2012 alone are glossed over because eliminating them would raise taxes on a much larger proportion of wealthy whites than of lower-income minorities.

Additionally, members of the Tea Party have expressed concern over increased government regulations and mandates that they claim are unconstitutional abrogations of individual freedom. In particular, they have pointed to the requirement in the health care reform law that all Americans obtain a health insurance plan as well as to tighter restrictions on lending and trading that were included in the financial regulation law. The Tea Party views these as examples of overzealous government that could adversely impact the economic livelihoods of healthy, stably employed citizens and well-to-do bankers working at major financial institutions. Yet at the same time, the Tea Party has actively supported the Arizona immigration law known as S.B. 1070 that allows state police to detain individuals who they suspect are in the country illegally. The latter imposes an undue burden upon Hispanics and Latinos who, if it comes into full force, will have to carry legal documentation of their citizenship at all times in order to avoid potential harassment. However, because most Tea Party members  are white and would not have their immigration status questioned, the principle of individual liberty matters little to them in this case.

Of course, there is little evidence to suggest that the Tea Party is composed of individuals with the same malevolent hatred for minorities that inspired earlier far-right conservative movements. Nevertheless, the set of policies that its members support would perpetuate unequal outcomes between races in America and would bring the country no closer to solving the problems which still exist as a result of the bigotry of previous generations.

Matt Cameron is an associate editor for The Cavalier Daily. His column appears on Tuesdays.

On a sunny Saturday morning during the first week of classes, I wandered Grounds between the Chapel and Newcomb Hall to ask students how they felt about parking enforcement. Is it too strict? Have you ever gotten a ticket? It wasn’t a sexy topic — but people didn’t hesitate to vent their complaints.

Parking officials are cracking down this semester on violators who don’t pay fines in a timely manner and fail to respond to multiple notices about outstanding citations. For the first time, they will implement vehicle immobilization, or booting, as a way to convince those who have made a habit of parking illegally to change their ways.

The Department of Parking and Transportation plans to use a “reasonable person’s test” when determining which cars to boot, Andy Mansfield, associate director for management, told me in an interview last week. Anyone who accumulates more than $250 in fines will have 14 days to appeal, but after that point, parking enforcement officers can tow the car or immobilize it with a boot, a device whose mention provoked more than a few knee-jerk reactions among students.

“It’s terrible,” second-year College student Matt Caplan interjected once I mentioned the new booting policy to him. “I was unaware there was a problem. If this goes through, I’ll be sure to park [my car] off Grounds.”

I asked students if they knew what a boot was — most did. My own first impression of it came from an episode of “The Simpsons” that originally aired in 1997. Barney, the habitual drunk, takes Homer’s car for a joyride, and when Homer finally tracks it down, he finds it in the middle of a plaza between the two towers of the World Trade Center with a pile of tickets under the windshield wiper and a small clamp jutting from one of the wheels like a steel piranha. Homer’s response — “D’Oh!” — is followed by a frantic rev of the engine, which succeeds in jolting the car forward, the boot still attached. His car moves at a snail’s pace, however, so he commandeers a jackhammer and manages to drill through and remove the boot, but not before inflicting near-catastrophic damage on his vehicle. It was an extreme instance, one that would lead to an additional $500 fine and prosecution for damaging the boot were it to have happened at the University, but it illustrates that the boot is undeniably good at forcing delinquent drivers to face facts.

‘Small Potatoes’
Last week, two Cavalier Daily editors and I spoke with Mansfield and Parking and Transportation Director Rebecca White aboard a shiny, royal blue, V-Sabre-emblazoned motor coach their department purchased earlier this summer for about $400,000. Massive and fitted out with Wi-Fi, DirecTV and leather seating, it is the flagship of White’s charter fleet, which earned $500,000 during the 2009-10 fiscal year, an unexpectedly strong financial result. (White was the one who suggested we meet inside the bus, and a driver parked it on McCormick Road across from Edgar Allan Poe’s Range room during the interview.) We discussed other matters first — ZipCars, UTS 411, future plans for ride sharing — before they told us more about the boot.

“It’s got that connotation,” Mansfield admitted, when asked why the University hadn’t already implemented boots, which cost $50 to remove. Used by “over half” of universities nationwide, he said, the boot is intended “to help people not get into financial debt.” He and White want it to act as a deterrent for the University’s most frequent violators and keep people who continually defy parking laws from allowing their charges to escalate further.

“We want to modify people’s behavior, and more importantly, use the spaces the way we want them to be used,” White said.

At the same time, parking enforcement places an undue strain on the department, White said, and is prone to sucking away time and resources spent hunting down violators visiting from out of town or who are no longer affiliated with the school. The boot will only be an added tool in this collection effort.

Financially, the boot will likely also be a boon to her department, although both she and Mansfield were hesitant about saying so. Citations brought in $572,000 in revenue during the 2009-10 fiscal year — “small potatoes,” White said, when compared to the $7.1 million earned in permit sales. The average parking citation costs the violator $45, while a permit can go upwards of $444, the price of a pass for the Lambeth lot. Revenue earned from parking citations goes into a general fund for maintenance and construction of P&T parking lots and garages.

“We’d rather sell a parking permit,” White said, although emphasizing that impelling drivers to follow the rules and alleviating the burden of tracking down violators are the primary reasons behind implementing the boot. “We would be thrilled if we wrote zero tickets in an academic year.”

A Common Tool
Although the boot does jam a few nerves — some people I spoke with had an instant, visceral reaction to it — the University’s policy at this point is roughly in line with those at other area schools. At Virginia Tech, cars are booted upon receiving their fifth citation within a semester, even if the violator has paid all fines promptly. At George Mason University, any vehicle which impedes the flow of traffic will be booted, as well as receive a citation and fee that cannot be appealed. At the College of William & Mary, drivers will be booted if they rack up three tickets and fail to pay or appeal them within 14 days of the date of the latest ticket, or if they receive two tickets and fail to pay them within 30 days of the later ticket.

“I know friends who have held off until graduation not paying their tickets,” fourth-year College student Amy Vu said, when asked whether she pays her parking tickets on time. (She does.) Does she think booting is justified? “I think it’s fair, if it’s a couple [citations] you don’t pay on time.”

Her plight is one most can relate to: “I pull into a spot for 10 minutes, and I’ll get a ticket,” she said. “But I know what I’m getting into parking in those spaces.”

This article is  part one of a two-part series. Our readers are encouraged to comment about their own issues and experiences with parking on Grounds on the online version of this article.

Attorney General and University alumnus Ken Cuccinelli’s attempt to seek documents belonging to former University Prof. Michael Mann was nipped in the bud yesterday in an Albemarle County Circuit Court.

Cuccinelli had initially alleged that Mann’s climate change research, which shows the steady escalation of the Earth’s temperatures during the past two decades, was fraudulent in receiving funds from the state. Judge Paul M. Peatross, Jr. held that although Cuccinelli has the right to investigate state grants to professors such as Mann, he did not present sufficient evidence of any fraudulent conduct to substantiate a civil investigative demand.

The ruling prevented Cuccinelli from pursuing an investigation that would force Mann, now the director of the Penn State Earth and Science Center, to disclose more information surrounding the conduct of his research.

Peatross’ ruling offered mixed messages for both sides of the case because although Cuccinelli’s demand did not go forward, the ruling also stated that though the University is a public corporation created for purpose, it is a public institution and therefore “governed and controlled by the state.” Consequently, the attorney general is permitted to investigate state grants to professors such as Mann, provided that Cuccinelli give specific conduct to investigate.

“According to the judge, Cuccinelli asserted that there was some reason to investigate without offering any facts to support it,” University Law Prof. Richard Schragger said.

Peatross held that Cuccinelli does not have “unbridled discretion” to review professors and instead must found civil investigative demands on an “objective basis.”
In turn, the ruling did not directly address issues of academic freedom, Schragger said, “because [Cuccinelli] did not even meet the minimum demand of investigative requirement.”

Cuccinelli, who is skeptical about global warming, surmised that Mann’s research was manipulated to receive grants. Mann, however, called the inquiry into his records “a fishing expedition,” as “it was not clear what [Cuccinelli’s] investigation was seeking.”

The case attracted nationwide attention, with controversy arising as to just how much academic freedom is allowed to a professor. It generated a reaction from the Faculty Senate, the Board of Visitors, the American Association of University Professors, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the American Civil Liberties Union presented an amicus brief to the court.

A statement released by the University emphasized that the attorney general failed to support any allegation that Mann engaged in fraudulent conduct and that academic freedom should inform the propriety of an inquiry into the conduct of University faculty.

According to a press release, Cuccinelli said although the decision was not an outright ruling in his favor, he is pleased that the judge has agreed with his office on key legal points and has given him a framework for issuing a new demand. Cuccinelli also stated in the press release he has yet to decide whether to appeal part of the ruling.

University President Teresa A. Sullivan delivered a sermon to a 500-member audience of Charlottesville community members at St. Paul’s Memorial Church Sunday. As the guest speaker for the church’s yearly “Convocation Sunday,” she spoke primarily about the need for a safer, more interconnected University setting.

“Our goal is to create a caring community — one whose members recognize their shared responsibility for each other,” Sullivan said, acknowledging the Yeardley Love tragedy as a catalyst for new University initiatives dedicated to improving community safety.

Among those initiatives is a “Day of Dialogue” scheduled for Sept. 24, which Sullivan described as an “open and vigorous discussion about violence, violence prevention and campus safety.” In addition, Sullivan mentioned the Get Grounded Coalition, an alliance of student organizations promoting a community more conscientious of possible acts of abuse occurring to others.

“We want to challenge the so-called ‘bystander behavior’ that may cause students or others to stand aside and remain passive in potentially dangerous situations, either because they don’t recognize the situation as problematic or because they don’t believe its their responsibility to take action,” Sullivan said. “We want each of us to take ownership of this community and to help take care of everyone in it.”

Sullivan was invited to speak at the church’s “Convocation Sunday,” an event held each year to welcome University students to Grounds, said Rev. James Richardson, the rector at St. Paul’s Memorial Church.

The church invites various speakers to the event, and this year Richard was appreciative of Sullivan’s visit, stating he was “impressed and grateful” that Sullivan openly broached the issue of campus safety.

“The University needs to work hard on becoming more of a caring community with each other,” he said, noting that about two-thirds of his congregation is connected with the University in some way. “All of us need to take responsibility for each other and not look the other way.”

After the sermon, Sullivan hosted a question-and-answer session, which Richardson described as a positive dialogue.

“A lot of people got something off their chest and got to say what they think, and I think she was a good listener,” Richardson said. “I can’t help but think that it will have some lasting impact.”

Sullivan closed her sermon by urging the audience to take her message to heart as well as to recognize the gravity of her message.

“Let’s promise not to stand by when someone else needs help,” Sullivan said. “Let’s promise to take responsibility for each other. Let’s promise to show hospitality and kindness to everyone around us.”

The University will begin construction on a new theater as an expansion of the drama education building and part of the Betsy and John Casteen Arts Grounds next year.
The expansion will include a 300-seat thrust-stage theater, which will extend into the audience on three sides connected by a backstage area.

University Architect David Neuman said plans for the theater — which will accommodate drama, dance and film — include remodeling the main lobby and public restrooms. The new building also will mirror the surrounding architecture.

“While [the department] is getting an additional stage, [it is] also getting additional space outside that connects in a marvelous way, echoing the contours of Carr’s Hill, a design which is complementary and harmonious with the landscape,” said Elizabeth Hutton Turner, vice provost for the arts.

There will be a ceremonial groundbreaking for the building in October, although construction — which will cost the University $6.3 million — is tentatively scheduled to not begin until January.

Drama Department Chair Tom Bloom said new resources and buildings for the arts at the University have been in the works for a while.

“This has been a project for a long time coming,” he said. “It is in part an outgrowth of the Virginia 2020 commission that convened a decade ago. New performing arts facilities were recommended by college administrators for this program. It’s been a long process that has finally unfolded.”

Bloom also said the new building will be beneficial to creating a stronger drama department at the University.

“We have a pretty vital program. In order to maintain it we need a consistent measure of support, which we have received,” he said. “I think any arts program or department aspires to build faculty and improve facilities and have a larger student cohort; the factors that foster that growth are many. The administration is moving in the right direction.”

The new theater is also part of the Betsy and John Casteen Arts Grounds, which is comprised of several construction projects to develop more resources for the arts.

The project, which was spearheaded by former Board of Visitors member Gordon Rainey, was created in honor of Casteen’s 20-year term as University president, Turner said. The Board of Visitors raised money for the project and allowed the Casteens to choose which project to back.

“From all the options, they chose to invest in the Arts Grounds,” Turner said.

The Virginia men’s tennis doubles team of senior Michael Shabaz and junior Drew Courtney earned a wild card Aug. 29 to compete in the U.S. Open, which began yesterday at the Billie Jean King National Tennis Center. The duo will play against the No. 10-seeded team of Wesley Moodie and Dick Norman in first-round action.

If the Cavaliers’ performance against Bob and Mike Bryan earlier this month in the first round of the ATP Legg Mason Tennis Classic is any indication of future success, Shabaz and Courtney may have more than a fighting chance to advance to the second round of the grand slam. The 2010 NCAA doubles champions took the No. 2-ranked team in the world to the wire, coming within two points of winning the first set and setting up the possibility for an upset.

Shabaz competed in last year’s Open as a wild card as well in a team with Wayne Odesnik. The duo lost to John Isner and Sam Querrey in the first round.

­—compiled by Andrew Seidman

As a rule, I try not to question the wisdom of the Bible, my elders or a Grade-A Badass like the late U.S. Army General George S. Patton. So when ‘Old Blood and Guts’ opined, “Americans love a winner,” I was perfectly inclined to believe him. After all, when Al Groh started winning more poetry contests than football games, it was time for Virginia football to start anew. But then I thought of the Charlie Browns of the baseball world — the poor sots who call themselves Pittsburgh Pirates fans — and Patton’s law shattered faster than the guy in the glass.

The continued existence of the Pittsburgh Pirates fan base is one of the world’s great mysteries, right up there with platypuses and Nic Cage. No sports franchise in U.S. history, let alone Major League Baseball, can even begin to approach the Pirates’ current streak of on-field futility. This season alone, the once-proud Pirates (43-88) have made plenty of history — none of it good — while amassing the worst record in baseball. April 22, the Buccos suffered their worst loss in franchise history, a 20-0 spanking at the hands of the Milwaukee Brewers. Then Aug. 20, Pittsburgh clinched its 18th consecutive losing season, the longest such streak in North American professional sports. To say that Pirates fans have ‘suffered’ does them about as much justice as calling Nelson Mandela ‘black.’ And yet, PNC Park fills half its seats for every Pirates home game at a rate close to that of the playoff-bound Tampa Bay Rays. Call it loyalty, call it nostalgia, call it the fumes from all that metallurgy finally taking a toll. Even with the pennant-winning Phillies just a five-hour bandwagon away, the Steel City hasn’t stopped cheering for the Pirates. That’s what makes this next part so sad.

Last week, the Associated Press reported that the Pirates made about $30 million in profit from the 2007 and 2008 seasons. Yes, the Pittsburgh Pirates. No, I did not confuse $30 million with 30 million losses. Not the Yankees. Not the Cubs. Not one of the other MLB members of the big-spending, heavy-hitting, play-to-win school of sports ownership. The Pittsburgh Pirates, whose last winning season came when Barney and Scooby Doo were teaching me life lessons in the downtime between snack time and nap time; whose current 2010 payroll of $35 million ranks dead-last in baseball, again; and whose ownership — which ‘splurged’ for about a $33 million payroll in 1992 — clearly doesn’t grasp the concept of inflation. All told, it’s a super-sized slap in the face to Pirates players and fans, akin to the lucrative retreat enjoyed by AIG executives mere days after receiving an $85 billion bailout from the federal government.

I dare the owners of a Pirates team that pocketed almost $70 million from MLB’s revenue sharing system in 2007 and 2008 to look its players and fans in the eyes and say, “We’re doing the best we can with what we’ve got.” That has basically been the party-line rhetoric spewed ad nauseam by Buccos boss Bob Nutting, the principal owner of the club since 2007. Too bad it’s been a load of bull.

The Pirates’ accountants can say all they want about how the team won’t remain a financial success if it starts spending serious money to improve the on-field product. They’re being rational. But they aren’t accounting for the emotions inherent in a baseball franchise that hasn’t sniffed .500 in almost two decades. Human beings do irrational things when they get emotional. Take Jason Bay, a longtime Pirates All-Star outfielder and fan favorite. In 2008, despite Bay’s exceptional play and expressed desire to remain with the team, the Pirates dealt their franchise player to the Boston Red Sox for prospects in a rebuilding effort to get younger and cheaper. Immediately following the announcement of the trade, Bay became emotional, struggled to say goodbye. Then Bay wept because he loved the team, the fans and the city of Pittsburgh, where he and wife Kristen were dedicated to charity in local communities. Because he desperately wanted to bring them that elusive playoff berth, or at least a winning season. Because he was no longer a Pittsburgh Pirate. In 2008, after telling Jason Bay that even he wasn’t worth it, Pirates ownership paid out more than $20 million to its partners. I guess they were just being rational.

Back in 1988, then-Sports Illustrated columnist Rick Reilly wrote a gem of a piece entitled “Glory to the Gridiron.” For baseball fans, it was the sports journalism equivalent of Santa stuffing a big batch of coal into your Christmas stocking, especially the classic quote by ESPN college football commentator Beano Cook. Upon hearing that the American victims of the Iranian Hostage Crisis received free baseball passes for life, Cook quipped, “Haven’t they suffered enough?” My answer: only if they’re Pirates fans. I wouldn’t wish a hostage situation on anyone, and that’s why I’m pleading that in 2011, Pittsburgh’s penny-pinching owners pull out all of the stops for a Pirates franchise held captive for far too long. Call it a one-year trial run in trying to win — Patton would be proud. Even my roommate — one of those “wait ‘til next year” Chicago Cubs fans — agrees that Pirates fans deserve a slice of Cubbie optimism. They truly have suffered enough.

First-year students have it easy. They check a website that tells them where they live and who their roommates are. After first year, however, living arrangements become more complicated.
While there are many factors that go into off-Grounds apartment hunting, the choice that most strongly affects quality of life is far more esoteric than roommates or even distance from Grounds. Instead, the most pivotal choice for living arrangements boils down to the following: whether or not to live in “old” or “new” housing. Students who chose the former have found both benefits and detriments living in more antiquated buildings.

Many older apartments in the Charlottesville area were built during the mid-1970s when the University opened to female students and demand for off-Grounds housing grew.
University Circle — home to both students and Charlottesville families — qualifies as an “older” area. 32 University Circle, for example, was built in 1947 and is owned by University Prof. Ed Burton and family.

“With older buildings, owners definitely want to try to make the units more comfortable and attractive where possible, like adding air conditioning, in-unit washer/dryers, overhead lighting/ceiling fans, upgraded appliances, etc.,” Property Manager Brian Roy said.

But he added that some buildings are too old to add new features, such as central air, without a significant amount of redesign. With such circumstances, owners may settle for window units while they upgrade other features of the apartment, such as kitchens and bathrooms.

Regardless of the convenience and comfort of modern features, though, owners of older properties are intent on maintaining the charm of such buildings. Roy, for example, emphasized the importance of preserving the historical character of aged homes; several charming features of 32 University Circle, for example, have been preserved, such as door knockers and mailboxes.

Third-year College student Rachael Eller, who lives in Jack Jouett apartments on University Way, said she and her roommate love old and antique objects and that the age of the apartment played a deciding factor in her housing search.

“This place stole our hearts the minute we saw it,” she said. “This building is extremely unique and positively bursting at the seams with character.”

Her building was built during the 1920s and has high ceilings, hard wood floors, glass door knobs and crown molding.

Eller described her location as “slightly tucked away,” among trees, family homes and distinct architecture. Unlike many of the Corner apartments, none of the apartments surrounding Eller’s are exactly the same.

Eller has yet to encounter any issues with her old apartment, other than creaking doors and floors, but she says they only add to the charm.

Second-year College student Kate Robbins, meanwhile, chose 64 University Way, another older building, because she and her roommates desired a more scenic living environment.
“I definitely feel I have more of a ‘home’ than my friends who live in newer apartments,” she said.

Despite Robbins’ love of her surroundings, she added that she was envious of some of her friends’ proximity to the Corner. The age of the building also can be tiresome, as the lack of air conditioning and troublesome old appliances can be rather inconvenient.

“The bathroom sink is original to the building and we are lucky to get a steady trickle from it,” Robbins said.

She also admitted her apartment has a pet — and not one of their own choosing. It seems a small mouse has taken up residence at 64 University Way.

“When I saw a mouse here, I was by myself and called my dad crying, but I haven’t seen it since then,” Robbins said.

Perhaps another student would find the additional roommate charming. Robbins, however, might pass.