H -°, L 22° | Tomorrow: 
H 23°, L 4°In his editorial “New Nat would address student concerns,” Mike Bernatz summarizes the sorry state of UW’s recreational facilities. He is right: the Nat and the SERF need to be renovated. The current referendum, however, is the wrong approach to addressing our long-term rec sports needs.
If the referendum passes, students will pay a maximum of $108.38 annually for the Nat renovation beginning in 2013. By adopting this referendum, however, students would be the only group on the hook financially for this project. Rec Sports plans to approach the legislature for money, but in these tough economic times there is no guarantee of state aid. Furthermore, not a single dollar has been raised from outside donors. The NatUP campaign overlooks precedent by suggesting future fundraising efforts would decrease the amount students have to pay. Union South supporters promised the same in 2006; since then, the Union has never raised a penny to offset students’ $196 annual contribution. Future donations to Rec Sports are likely to fund other projects, not the Nat.
The NatUP campaign suggests current students won’t pay for this project. This isn’t entirely true. We are already paying indirectly: Rec Sports has invested almost $31,000 in the NatUP campaign, including $20,000 toward website design and $4,950 for a PowerPoint presentation. Moreover, renovation plans remain fuzzy. During the construction period, which I am told will begin as early as fall 2011, up to 800,000 additional “swipes” (visitor entrances) will need to be squeezed into other Rec Sports buildings to accommodate displaced Nat users. This could result in up to 50% more visitors to the SERF during that time. While current students may not pay for this project from their pocketbooks, we will pay in other ways.
The NatUP website informs us that a “yes” vote for the referendum provides students a chance to “impact Recreational Sports” for “future generations.” This is a noble gesture, but students will bear more than their fair share of the cost. In 2008-09, students accounted for only 65% of Nat usage. Since 2001, faculty and staff usage of the Nat has increased 58% while student usage has increased by only 27%. So far, faculty and staff have not been asked to pay a dime. [Editor’s note: As commenters have pointed out, faculty and staff do pay membership fees for usage of the Natatorium.]
Bernatz suggests that acting now allows us to do this project on the cheap. But short-term expediency will result in unnecessary future costs. Legitimate questions have been raised but have never been answered about transportation and environmental costs, as well as whether a sports facility on the Lakeshore will really ease demand on the SERF. Why not carefully develop one long-term plan to address all facilities needs instead of proposing a dusted-off version of a Nat plan that has been floating around for almost a decade and a SERF plan in just a couple years?
No plan is ever perfect, and it is true that current conditions of Rec Sports facilities might tempt us to vote “yes.” The multiple flaws of this plan, however, lead me to the regrettable but necessary decision to vote “NO.”
Sincerely,
Frank Honts
Frank Honts ([email protected]) is a graduate student studying Educational Policy Studies and a member of ASM Shared Governance.
IP hash: f5faf197
Undergrads, trust the grad students here. They know what they are talking about. It might feel pretty good to vote for a new Nat; Like oh boy you’ve you have power, and you’re exercising it to build cool caca.
But really supporting Nat up is just playing into the administration’s pocket. And when it comes down to it, they care much more for themselves and the opulence of campus than your education. Practically and on principle there is just no way you can reasonably support Nat Up.
Long story short: Don’t be a tool, vote NO!
IP hash: 1797ce17
I’m continually amazed at how willing the students are to pay for stuff they’ll never use. Is the whole campus going to be renovated through seg fees and corrupt referendum votes? How many sub 10% turnout referendum elections will ASM have this time until they get the votes they want?
UW system administrators are responsible for the construction and maintenance of the campus facilities. What are they spending their budgets on? Are they even trying private fundraising efforts?
And lastly, why is it the obligation of UW to provide free workout facilities to the students AND faculty. Tack on a small membership fee. At the very least the actual users should be paying for this.
IP hash: 0e90c3b2
How about the $53 in seg fees we pay for bus passes every semester .. I dont see you arguing against that?
IP hash: 56b702eb
1) Give me a link to those numbers you’ve provided pertaining to the amounts of money used for campaigning and powerpoint presentations.
2) A 27% increase for student usage is huge considering the lack of renovations and new larger dormitories in the Lakeshore area. Especially when you consider the Nat is currently ill-equipped to take on these users. Also, I want to know how much in terms of people the Nat and Faculty participation has increased. An increase of 27% for students is huge if before for example 10,000 students used the Nat. A 58% increase for faculty could be insignificant if only 1000 faculty members used the facility before, as an example. Stop using percentages to skew your view and give me raw numbers.
IP hash: 514041ed
When will the Badger Herald start to screen these op-eds for actual facts?
Frank-
To say that faculty would not pay for this building is ridiculous. The faculty would certainly pay an increase in their fee at least as large as the $54 increase the students would feel. Please talk to members of ASM’s Rec Sports board regarding these concerns!
9:29- Faculty and staff currently do pay a fee to use the facility. Those fees, which increase every year, go to operating costs of the facility and help to keep segregated fees that would be used for operating costs very low!
I understand that the Badger Herald ed-board is against this proposal. But would it be too much to ask that, for the benefit of students who still are formulating their opinions, the Badger Herald at least print factual information in their paper?
IP hash: be168d62
Frank, it�s really unfortunate that you didn�t take the time to actually ASK SOME QUESTIONS prior to publishing inaccuracies about the Nat project. But, it�s typical of what I have seen from those distracters.
Let�s clarify some things. Like so many, you obviously have some ill will regarding the Union South project. This has nothing to do with Union South, so any references to that project and the NatUp idea is just you spouting off.
Yes, when you take a facility off line for a 2 year period it does cause some inconveniences. Does that keep us from considering the advantages over the next 40 years? There will be a plan created to minimize the impact during any construction phase. It likely will include moving equipment to the SERF, and extending hours at both the SERF and Shell. You could have learned this � but you didn�t ask.
You say that the faculty/staff have not been asked to contribute a dime toward the project. Faculty/staff membership fees will increase when student segregated fees increase, at least at the same amount. While this revenue does not pay for debt service it certainly contributes to the operational costs of the facilities. This revenue funds a good portion of the operational costs of the facilities and reduces the need for seg fees for that purpose. When the project is approved, the Recreational Sports Board will take up that issue and arrive at a membership fee for faculty/staff. Again Frank, you could have learned this-but you didn�t ask.
Finally, you suggest considering the SERF in a few years instead of the Nat renovation and expansion. Part of the facility master plan included looking at options and the SERF was considered. Because the SERF is landlocked on all sides due to Dayton Street to the north, the east campus mall to the west, and an underground power line to the south and east, the footprint of the building cannot be expanded. The only option to significantly increase the amount of space, which is what is needed, is to build up. To get the space needed you would have to build 7 or 8 stories. And, according to the architect, the existing structure cannot withstand the additional floors so the entire building would have to be demolished and rebuilt at a cost double or more than the Nat project. Considering the cost and the fact that you would tear down what is actually the best (or least offensive) facility just doesn�t make sense. And Frank, again you could have learned � but you didn�t ask.
So to all of you out there reading information from Frank and others that are equally ignorant of the project, please understand that most of what they espouse is false. The fact is, this is a great project at a reasonable investment and I urge you to do future Badgers a favor and by voting YES to this improving our student life opportunities.
IP hash: 41a37005
There are so many blatant lies and misinformation is this “Opinion” article, it does not merit a response, but I can’t help myself.
Money has been raised from outside sources and further efforts are being made. Athletics is contributing at least $500,000 to the project. The state will be asked. Rec Sports is contributing 1 million dollars to offest the cost to students until the Fall of 2013.
The SHELL, Nielsen, AND the SERF will all have to provide additional equipment and possibly longer hours. Yes, it will be a invonvenience for a period of time, but let’s not overlook the benefit to students for the next 4 decades or so. Or in your case Frank, go ahead and ignore that. Future students won’t care as these facilities continue to diminish…
In case you have never asked or did ANY research at all, which it sounds like you haven’t, Faculty and Staff pay membership fees to the tune of almost $650,000 a year to offset operatinal costs. AND, get this, the proposal includes a membership increase to them equal to the students or greater. But go ahead and ignore that too.
As far as the environment, contact Facilities Planning and Management and ask about it. Rec Sports has. And every precaution has been and would continue to be taken to minimize any negative impact during construction, AND, get this, Rec Sports has guaranteed the facility itself would be Silver LEED certified, guaranteeing 40 years of sustainable operations. But it doesn’t sound like you have looked into that on the website either to even know what that means.
Please define a “long term plan” Frank. If 8 years of research, surverying thousands of students, working with the campus, the state, focus groups, architects, students, students, and more students is not enough for you, I think it will be impossible to ever satisfy you.
And lastly, if you are so concerned about transportation to the NAT, check out a bus route. http://www.cityofmadison.com/metro/Schedules/Route%2080/80-WeekdayStandard.html Unless a bus going by the Nat every 7 minutes isn’t enough for you.
And yeah, we get it, you’ll vote no. Good for you. We hope that at least someone who reads this will take the time to get some facts before voting, which you obviously have not.
IP hash: 55f9d228
Just a BIG FYI to TAA’s. Faculty and staff DO pay a membership fee. Read your facts before you spout inaccurate information. Seems like the undergraduates have a lot more facts than any graduate student posting on here…
IP hash: 99126dd3
Not to continue beating a dead horse here, but… Frank has further issues with the truth in his article…
He states that students are currently paying for this campaign indirectly, and then sites the $31,000 that have been spent by RecSports on this campaign.
The fact is, RecSports has donated gift funds and other revenues to the NatUp campaign. In no way have student segregated fees gone to paying for this proposal. Of course, that would be completely unethical and against University policy. But again, Frank decided he didn’t need to do any research before writing this op-ed. Apparently, the Badger Herald decided it didn’t need to do any research before it published Frank’s op-ed either…
IP hash: 55f9d228
Frank, I guess I can understand your “regrettable” decision to vote no on the project, considering it looks like you have NO facts about the project. Try reading the FAQ’s on the NatUp website before you throw out all your ridiculous and apparently blatant lies.
Anyone who attended the debate Thursday night knows who has the facts and who is being honorable about the project in presenting this to the students. Let the “true” students speak for this campus next week.
IP hash: df0f08df
Wow, the NatUp trolls are out in full force on this one. I would bet that most of the undergrads in NatUp aren’t independent adults who pay their own bills, while nearly all graduate students are responsible for making ends meet.
NatUp folks, consider that most of the independent adults enrolled at the UW fiercely oppose another seg fee.
IP hash: 9767abfe
I’m voting YES for this project so future badgers don’t have to be embarrassed by their rec facilities.
IP hash: badd279f
With 32,000 unique student users, this is a great value. How many unique students hang around the Student Activity Center like you do, Frank? And at $20 per semester to put you in nice digs, how great of a value is that for the vast majority of students?
IP hash: eed7dfff
Speaking on behalf of ‘NatUp trolls’ I am a prime example of the thousands of other undergraduate students who pays for my education out of pocket, has taken out several student loans, and has worked three jobs. I am financially independent of my parents AND I am voting YES on this referendum. This project is something I am in favor of regardless of how many extra hours I will have to put in at work because of the fee. Recreation brings balance to my life and being able to use a state of the art recreational facility is very important to me, as it is to thousands of other undergraduates. I am also an independent adult voting YES this monday. So stop generalizing the sides of this issue, -On behalf of all of us.
IP hash: 55f9d228
Trolls? Wow. And here I thought the “Graduate” students were the more mature…I guess the debate Thursday truly was the accurate representation of the TAA. Stay hot.