H -°, L 22° | Tomorrow: 
H 23°, L 4°Thursday’s article about ASM’s decision to require 15 percent minimum turnout for any capital building project funding measure was a slap in the face for those of us who have been here long enough to remember the history of the Student Union Initiative.
The referendum, in one of its various forms or another, was defeated in the 2005 spring election 2,385 to 2,200 with 12 percent turnout and then again during the 2006 spring election 4,654 to 3,959 with 22.4 percent turnout. These results were discarded because the elections were “botched.” When the referendum did pass in the fall of 2006, it did so by a margin of 1,691 to 915 and a paltry turnout of 6.59 percent. The actual designs for the new Union South (and hence the final price tag) would not be completed for another two years — their announcement was also in Thursday’s edition.
So I’m supposed to be happy that ASM has decided to close the barn door, now that the horse is gone? With UW, state and federal finances in the shape that they’re in, what major building projects were they expecting to pop up that would require student funding? What an empty gesture. It certainly won’t help the next 30 years’ worth of students as they fork over 58 percent of the $87.7 million tab in segregated fees.
If Jeff Wright and the rest of ASM really think that this mockery of a safeguard is “absolutely fantastic” they should put their money where their mouth is: hold the referendum again with their minimum enforced. Hold it again, now that the plans and services have actually been laid out and the cost to students has been clearly defined. Or better yet, apply this minimum to all student votes that involve ASM instead of just “capital building projects.”
But neither of these will happen. The wrecking party is already set for Union South, and ASM would never apply the 15 percent minimum across the board. After all, we can’t have ASM ignored out of existence, now can we?
John Dawson
UW graduate student
IP hash: e7039eea
I am glad that ASM passed this measure. It’s not the fault of the current ASM gov’t that the Union South travesty occurred — until they actually demolish the building, it is not too late — get the legislature or the State Building Commission to intervene — maybe even the Governor.
Can’t Jeff Wright, et al, swing the elected officials in their favor given the current economic climate?
The Union bullied this thing through. They twisted arms, lobbied heavily — they even had a pro-referendum video running constantly in the hallway outside the Lakefront Cafe in the weeks before the election.
IP hash: 40633f06
I think the overarching sentiment for this LTE is that a cap should have been in place years ago. With this I fully concur. However, the important point is that there has been an active effort to ensure that “a paltry turnout of 6.59%” cannot enter the university into prolonged debt service to finance a capital building project. As for the proposal to revote on the union initiative, this is a moot point. The university has already entered debt service, put up the financing and acquired the contracts for deconstruction and construction. Thus, this is not an option. We cannot address previous failures by the student government, but we can protect against abuses in the future.
-SSFC Chair Kurt Gosselin
IP hash: d2f7d986
Ummm…. The Nat is planning on remodeling and wants to get Seg Fees to do it. It seems ASM is ensure that Rec Sports can’t get away with with what the Union did last time.
IP hash: 33273537
How can the old initiative even stand anymore now that the plans and the costs have changed dramatically? The building won’t be built when they said it will be and the costs went from $67 million to $87.7 million.
IP hash: f940899d
“How can the old initiative even stand anymore now that the plans and the costs have changed dramatically? The building won’t be built when they said it will be and the costs went from $67 million to $87.7 million.
that’s a very good point, how much does the project have to change for the referendum to become null and void?
IP hash: da40f0e4
“As for the proposal to revote on the union initiative, this is a moot point.”
It’s funny how that wasn’t a moot point when the initiative was voted down twice, but only now that it was approved after the vote was rigged, isn’t it?