LETTERS: CA goes to the real estate market

To the Editor: Rights of property owners: As owner of 3601 Locust Walk, the Christian Association has the right to sell its property to anyone who can legally act as a purchaser. This right may be exercised to help the Christian Association continue its mission of service to the University community, just as it has done for more than 100 years. The market: Markets function, in part, to establish value in transactions between willing buyers and sellers. Ultimately, there is no substitute for market mechanisms to establish the value of investment-grade real estate, including public discourse in the DP. Over the past several years, the Christian Association has been predisposed to make and entertain proposals from the University regarding this building. In fact, three comprehensive proposals made by the CA to the University or its schools were rejected during the last year. The CA has simply decided to exercise its right as a property owner "by going to market" to protect its interests. University Real Estate Department: Managing Director of Real Estate Tom Lussenhop has been quoted by the DP in reference to the University's most recent proposal. I am dismayed by several comments (if accurately reported) including his representation of Penn's last proposal as "fair and equitable for both parties." As a real estate professional, Lussenhop is either naive or disingenuous to represent that the University's actions as a profit maximizer/cost minimizer are in the best interests of the Christian Association. For several years, the University has been the beneficiary of a very private approach to acquiring this property. As a result, there has been no definitive information establishing the true market value of this property. We are optimistic that the market will respond favorably to this opportunity. Eric van Merkensteijn Chairperson, Executive Committee of the Christian Association Responsible drinking To the Editor: Now that the outbreak of alcohol-related crimes has gotten out of control, and the administration has been forced to consider ways of limiting dangerous alcohol consumption on campus, they have to discuss various solutions to the problem. Difficult questions need to be addressed, and they must decide whether or not to place our parties under tighter regulations, and whether or not to seek the assistance of the LCE to punish underage drinkers. While I understand the predicament they find themselves in, I think these questions fail to address the underlying issue. The vast majority of Penn students are responsible about their drinking decisions, and do not deserve to be punished for the mistakes of a small minority. People who want to drink dangerously will find ways to do so, no matter what further restrictions are placed on them. I know that simply discouraging a crackdown does nothing to suggest a solution, and, in order to do so, I propose a few questions of my own. They are not directed at the administrators, but at the irresponsible students, who are creating the problem. First of all, what is wrong with you people? Why must you drink yourselves to the point of uncontrollability? Is it because it's the "cool" thing to do? If so, who exactly is impressed? Is it your friends who are happy to give up their night in order to take care of you, or is it the beautiful girl at the other end of the room who is undoubtedly going to be impressed by your green complexion and slurred speech? If you are not doing it to be "cool," then you must be doing it because it's fun, right? If so, which part is the most fun? Is it spending the night at the police station, or does the fun come later on in life, when you must explain your criminal record to a potential employer? When I got to Penn, I expected to find students that aspired to a "four-oh" as a GPA., not a blood-alcohol level. Having spent two years here, I am convinced that Penn students are smart, mature and responsible, which leaves me with only one question: why can't we act that way? Michael Kraver College '99