First, unless you are still here in 2013, you won’t be paying for the Nat renovation.

Second, if you work out in ANY of the facilities, you know that overcrowding is a huge problem. NatUp is a huge step in the right direction to ease that burden. Ignoring the problem does not make it go away.

Third, while this IS an issue of segregated fees, NatUp is entirely unrelated to Union South and the Student Activity Center.

Fourth, it is ridiculous to vote no “regardless of how you feel about the Nat.” I understand the premise that you want to set a precedent about putting your foot down toward hikes in segregated fees. However, it makes sense to invest your money in things you care about. So if you care about the Nat, your health, and the health of future generations of Badgers, you should vote yes.

If you have stepped foot inside the recreational facilities available at UW-Madison, you know that they are in bad shape and in need of a renovation. While no one wants to see seg. fees raised, sometimes they are necessary to meet goals of the university. Having more space to workout and a facility designed for that sole purpose is something that UW-Madison needs, and many other universities (for example, UW-Milwaukee) already have.

I find it hard to believe that the only reason you think the NAT is being improved is because the university likes �shiny new recruitment tools.� As a college student, I would expect that you would have learned to analyze both sides of an argument so as to not jump to such uneducated decisions. First off, let me explain why the NAT ACTUALLY needs to be reformed. Our campus is increasingly becoming a �fit� campus: people are working out more because they see the importance of exercise and they straight up enjoy it. Student population over the past few years has risen slightly while the population using the workout facilities has increased by over half a million. If you use the SERF, NAT, or SHELL, you may notice how ridiculously over crowded they are. Weight rooms are shoulder to shoulder, people are lining up to use cardio equipment, and spin classes are being held in racquetball courts. Basically, we need a lot more room. The new NAT will provide a seven times larger cardio area, a four times larger weight area, and an increased amount of gyms and specialty rooms. This provides students with the necessary space to get workouts in without taking up a huge chunk of our already busy schedules. The new gyms are an extremely versatile option, adding space for recreation, intramurals, student orgs, etc� not to mention an indoor turf field that would be able to accommodate intramural and club sports alike. Finally, no more rained out flag football games! As an engineer, this project greatly interests me. Something that crossed my mind when I first heard about this project is why not just renovate the SERF and save everyone some money. After doing some research, I found that not only is the possibility of outward expansion impossible, but the facility is not strong enough to build upward. The NAT is the best option. Their plans for expansion are very sleek and innovative. The use of windows and lighting will brighten up the entire facility and provide for some sick views of the campus and lake. The best part is I don�t have to work out in dark, cramped spaces anymore. I was also happy to hear that the design has Silver LEED Certification in mind, so not only will they save on energy and operation costs, but limit overall impact. Your biggest concern is clearly the raise in costs to students. Well first off, the raise in segregated fees will be a maximum of $54, not over $100. That�s equivalent to about one month�s rent over a student�s four years at this university. I feel that this is a bearable amount for the amazing benefits the new building has to offer. Second, the raise will not occur until 2013, and will be spread out for several years. There is no reason for you to get all upset about donating money to an awesome cause because you will presumably be out of here by then. Third, the entire project is not solely funded by students. The new NAT will serve several purposes other than a work out facility for students. It will be including classrooms, athletic facilities, and a pool upgrade. Therefore funding will also be drawn from the state, Intercollegiate Athletics, and private donations. The new NAT will be a nice looking building, I�ll give you that. It may even entice students to go to school here, just as the new Union South will. It�s important to recognize that this is not the reason renovations are being made. The current facilities just don�t meet the demand of the students. Surveys have been going on for years in the current facilities, and this is what students have been asking for. The bottom line is that UW is currently among the most affordable Big Ten universities. Another small increase in seg fees may seem bothersome, but the broad picture is that when it is all done it will have been well worth it. UW will be getting a much more modern, efficient, functional, and spacious facility while still remaining affordable. You can�t tell me that you would like to see the same old, deteriorating buildings that were constructed in the 60s and 70s still being used when your kids are attending Madison, can you? It is important to weight all of these positives of the proposed project with you single negative upon making the decision to vote or not vote for the new NAT. I am not part of the NATUP committee. I am simply an average student who can see the benefits of such a facility on campus. This project is essential to improving campus life for future students. I encourage everyone who is sick of small, dark, and cramped workout spaces, the lack of basketball and badminton courts, or the lack of space for Group X classes, intramurals, and student orgs to VOTE YES on April 12th -14th.

I will be voting YES for NatUp. Union South and the SAC are one thing, but a new/renovated workout facility is something that our campus NEEDS. What’s the greatest health crisis facing our country right now? Obesity. Where do people go to fix that? Workout facilities. What do they do when they go there and there’s no space, overcrowding, and they feel uncomfortable? Go home and never come back. NatUp will also help with promoting health awareness and I see ~$50 a semester a very small price to pay (less than one textbook!) for this huge investment in the health and wellness of the students on our campus.

You are strictly against the project simply because of the use of segregated fees. Like the poster above states, obesity is one of the biggest problems in the United States. When those people who do not feel as comfortable inside a gym walk into the SERF or Nat and it is so crowded he/she just feels like he/she is being watched or stared at that person will most likely just go home and put off exercising for another day. You do not quite seem to understand the need to upgrade the facilities. The need is not just to keep up with other competing schools, but to be able to meet the want and need for exercise space of the UW-Madison students. I will be voting yes, because even though I won’t be able to use the New Nat incoming students should have a better workout environment than I did.

Sounds sort of like the health care bill doesn’t it? Pass the bill to later generations. You have to take a stand somewhere, otherwise seg fees will continue to be increased. When is it time to say “NO MORE”?

Several comments: What is the greatest health crisis in this country? Probably the lack of good and accessible health care (even with the new health care bill), not obesity. People will need quality health care, no matter if obesity is a problem or not. A new facility will not “inspire” people to exercise more. Obtaining quality health care is DIRECTLY tied to their financial situation, and if students aren’t on their parents’ health care plan or get it through their employment, then they have to resort to either the SHIP plan or a private insurer, neither of which is cheap.

Secondly, many current students WILL be here in 2013 and beyond. It’s a pretty bold statement to be so callous about the financial situation of current and future students, and, in the same breath, claim “So if you care about … the health of future generations of Badgers, you should vote yes.” I really do care about the health of students. But raising their seg fees isn’t going to make them healthier. Hell, I would even argue that a better financial situation for students allows them to make better nutrition decisions and pay for health care.

I urge students to vote NO on April 12.

The UW alone cannot prevent obesity. Claiming that renovating the Nat will make people work out is like saying that renovating a church will make more people go. People do what they want when they want, and that includes choosing, or not choosing to work out.

The UW has a responsibility as a STATE school to offer affordable education. Segregated fees have almost doubled since 2003. The point this letter to the editor is trying to make is when will the rise in fees stop? According to the trend of the last few years, it won’t.

@Anonymous (I assume it’s the same person all three times),

Your first point pretty much clinches it for me: NatUp is selling this campaign by pushing the bill onto students that won’t have a chance to vote. I’m suspicious that the entire idea is just a way for the architects and construction companies to make more money.

Do you have research to back up your claim about the need for more facilities? For instance how many students would have worked out yesterday, but decided against it because the Nat is full? Just because you have noticed that the Nat seems busy at certain times of the day, doesn’t necessarily prove that a substantial number of students have been denied access to exercise.

The Nat probably needs an upgrade. That said, we shouldn’t be using student fees to do it.

Also, the astroturfing over here is pretty hilarious.

Count me in. Our facilities SUCK. $50 per semester? I pay $50 a month to work out right now because I cannot stand the crowds.

In response to this statement: “unless you are still here in 2013, you won�t be paying for the Nat renovation”

As a graduate student, I WILL be at UW in 2013, and for a few years after that as well — most graduate students are in school for at least 5 years, if not more, and if you are a graduate student, you should consider how much money you pay in seg fees in your time here, and try to keep track how much more you pay each year (seg fees have gone up each year since 2003 btw.)

The issue here is NOT that those who want to stop the yearly increase of seg fees are against the building a new gym/work out facility. Instead, the issue is that seg fees have increased every year, and at the rate they are increasing, at some point, it is we the STUDENTS who need to put a stop to this yearly increase — and this upcoming election is our chance to do so.

why should the students bear the cost of this? why not the athletic department? and why now, when seg fees are already going towards so many different on-going construction projects?

To Andy: “You are strictly against the project simply because of the use of segregated fees.”

Yes, I am against the project “because of the use of segregated fees.” And it’s definitely not a “simple” reason.

If health concerns are as pressing as you say they are, why don’t you lobby the UNIVERSITY for these issues? What does it say about our university that the administration doesn’t care enough about students’ welfare to fund the new gym?

Why is the only option considered raising segregated fees? We shouldn’t be spending this in a RECESSION when we’re still paying off 2 over-the-top renovations.

Do those of you who claim to NEED the new gym realize that YOU likely won’t be here to profit from it??

Completely agree. Voting no.

Voting No. if you want to stop obesity you need to create a will to work out, not a shiny weight set. and perhaps we could focus on health and environmental issues , not to mention the plight of non-human sentient life and encourage veganism, thats cheaper than 50 bucks in seg fees, which to reiterate is a tuition raise, no matter how you look at it.

I think all the buffoonery of discussing the Nat proposal in terms of “solving obesity” and “being forced on future generations of students” misses a few of the more subtle (and larger) points about the Nat proposal.

1) Segregated fees are permitted to be used for capital building projects. (Yes the UW System intended to allow seg fees to go toward building construction, particularly insofar as student life ins concerned). Recreational sports activities in addition to unions, health centers, etc. are all permitted expenses of seg fees. In fact, that seg fees can be used to construct buildings on campus that will benefit the extracurricular lives of students is a huge benefit that can be tapped into when state budget woes tie the hands of the UW.

That being said, it is important to recognize that seg fees must be managed and maintained at a reasonable level; otherwise, students will begin to bear an undue burden for the sake of particular departments and areas of campus.

2) Recreational facilities, whether you like it or not, do impact university admissions. As students, we should all be concerned with the quality of our institution - not only in terms of academic atmosphere but also in terms of academic, employer and lay-person reputation. Factors which affect these reputations include school rankings and quality students admitted to the university.

When students of high academic caliber, particularly out-of-state students, but also in-state students, are looking at universities, they are deciding amongst relatively equal peer institutions (at least in terms of academia). In case anyone hasn’t noticed, our peer institutions are unfortunately Illinois and Iowa (at least if you accept US News rankings), not North Carolina, Texas, UCLA and Michigan like they probably should be. One of the major factors these students will often make concern life outside of the classroom such as dormitory living conditions, regional climate, bars and restaurants and recreational facilities. Ours have not been updated in close to 30 years; whereas Ohio State, Minnesota and many of our Big Ten peers have newer, more spacious facilities than we currently boast, and this hurts our incoming admissions crop.

3) NatUp’s “selling strategy.” Many people want to attack the NatUp plan for not charging seg fees until 2013 as a way to pass the bill onto future students to make the student voting populace more apathetic or at least to dispense of a reason to oppose the proposal. I have difficulty accepting this view. Considering the substantial flak that the Wisconsin Union took for charging students such an exorbitant amount of money ($96 per semester) before the building is ready for use, NatUp wanted to ensure that those who won’t be able to use the building won’t have to pay for it. That seems like an equitable solution to me.

4) Does renovating the Nat make sense for the goals NatUp claims it is seeking? To answer this question, I don’t know. I understand that it would be nearly twice as expensive and much more logistically difficult to tear down and build a bigger, better SERF, but I have trouble seeing students who live East of Bascom (Chadbourne, Witte, Selery, Ogg, Smith and myriad of apartments) plus the College Court contingent busing to the Nat to use newer facilities. I guess part of the thought is that the new dormitory complex that is slated for lakeshore will boost Nat usage, but my understanding was that the University was going to tear down one or two of the other lakeshore dorms making the lakeshore residency total only a net gain of about 100-200 students. I have trouble seeing this as a remedy for SERF overcrowding and am afraid that the new Nat might be underutilized. That being said, I have spoken with dozens of students who indicated willingness to travel to work out if it meant avoiding overcrowded weightrooms. If this was true, however, why is the Shell half empty every time I go there?

5) How much is too much when it comes to seg fees? This is an extremely difficult question to answer. We want to keep seg fees as low as possible, while also ensuring that students have essential services that improve the Wisconsin Experience. The NatUp proposal would be much easier to stomach if we weren’t paying $192 each year for Union South, but the reality is we have to take that into consideration. I do think it is a terrible idea to oppose the Nat on the grounds “seg fees should not be used for capital building projects” or to take a “No New Seg Fees” approach, since that is myopic and does not actually consider the quality of the university.

However, I do think it is important to consider all the information available and make an informed decision in this election, since the votes cast on April 12-14 have a large impact on the future of this project and the future of our campus. I have not yet decided how I will vote on the NatUp proposal, but I know that I will ultimately cast my vote in the interest of serving our great University and the future generations of students who will attend.

Consider the alternative to not using seg fees for this project… How exactly would we fund a new facility?

1) Athletics: There is no way to justify athletics spending money on student recreation facilities, unless their athletes would prevent regular students from using said facilities. Athletics is a popular scape goat amongst students when looking to push a spending burden elsewhere, but it simply isn’t realistic to expect them to cover all costs across the board. Also, keep in mind that the Athletic department would indeed contribute money to a new Natatorium, as the pool (which is used by the swim and dive teams) would be renovated and new lockerooms added.

2) Administration: Would students really want the administration to front the costs of a building designed for student recreation? Let’s assume that a renovated Natatorium or other building is in fact unpopular amongst students. However, the administration felt that it would be beneficial for recruiting new students/presenting a more impressive campus, to have a new facility (as many of the NatUp detractors have argued this spring). Despite these student reservations, the administration went ahead with the project. The administration would front the cost by using tuition dollars, which would still cause some type of tuition increase or proportional budget cut. The only difference would be that the student’s didn’t have any input in the matter. At least by using seg fees, the students have the ability to voice a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote to decide how/if the money was spent.

3) Alumni donations: How many other public universities can you name that have found a handful of donors to kick in $65 million for new rec facilities? Realistically, that isn’t going to happen. Sure, Notre Dame recieved a $25 million donation for a new rec facility. So did Texas. But these are simply not the norms. To expect a UW alumni to come down from the clouds and write the University a blank check is just silly.

I agree that the NAT does need to be renovated, but I don’t think the proposed plan and budget is realistic. Im sure the NAT can be updated for far less money. Is it really necessary to have such a large lobby/sitting area? Do we really need so many flat screen tv’s? I’m all for my gym space, but this proposed building plan seems to add a lot of extra frills.