H -°, L 22° | Tomorrow: 
H 23°, L 4°From today until Wednesday, students will answer a number of issues wrapped up in one ballot question.
The question on the ballot, of course, is whether to approve the construction of an addition to the Natatorium. This includes a grace period in which students will not be charged. The grace period lasts until 2013, when segregated fees will increase by $54.19 per semester.
We recognize the need for recreational facilities on this campus. The SERF is certainly crowded, as is the Natatorium. We’re not sure if the same goes for the Shell, whose renovation for UW athletics usage is one of the reasons the Natatorium is being renovated in the first place, according to an April 22, 2005 draft of the Campus Master Plan.
However, there are three prime concerns that prevent this board from endorsing the Natatorium renovation at this time.
The first is a concern of student responsibility. NatUP has lauded the subsidies from Recreational Sports program revenue that will prevent increased segregated fees during the first few years of construction and planning. While this is a clear benefit to current students, the reason behind this subsidy is mostly tactical.
This student body would be far more willing to approve a measure they have no financial stake in. As there is no direct financial impact on the vast majority of voters, the question of costs may be “out of sight, out of mind” and make for an easier passage.
Students who vote for this project should be faced with the immediate impact on their pockets to foster a sense of fiscal responsibility not just for this student body, but for future students over the next three decades. By subsidizing this project, Rec Sports gives itself a campaign advantage, which does a disservice to future students.
Secondly, Rec Sports has, as far as we’re concerned, brought forth no good-faith efforts to lower the overall financial burden on the student body. When the Wisconsin Union pushed its renovations of the Memorial Union and rebuilding of Union South, it did stipulate a certain percentage of the project would be paid for by private donations. While it was not a large percentage, it was at least a pledge that the entire project would not be balanced on students’ backs.
Rec Sports makes no such pledge. There is always the possibility that someone will come swooping in to throw a chunk of change the way of the Natatorium, but neither NatUP nor Rec Sports has secured any sort of agreement. Rec Sports has had at least two years since its initial presentation to Shared Governance to search for funding and may have had significant details in mind since the Natatorium renovation’s inclusion in the Campus Master Plan five years ago. Since there has been no move to include private financing in the plan in that time, we cannot support a “yes” vote.
Lastly, the increase in segregated fees being levied by Rec Sports in the next 10 years is untenable. To argue that the Natatorium project is simply $108 per year obfuscates the full Rec Sports plan. After the completion of the Natatorium, the Southeast Recreational Facility, which serves almost as many students as the Natatorium and Shell combined, will also undergo a thorough reconstruction. This construction will likely cost more than the Natatorium and will likely include a more significant seg fee increase than the Nat.
The SERF needs attention first. We understand that it will take the SERF out of commission for years and leave only the Nat and Shell for overflow. We also understand that fewer students would be inconvenienced if the Nat addition is built first. Yet, it’s the SERF that most students use and regard as the one in need of improvements. Creating an addition onto a dying facility for the purpose of easing the renovations for Rec Sports’ star facility proves to be too high a price for convenience.
The members of this board consider themselves to be realists. We encouraged the tuition rise of the Madison Initiative because of its benefit to academic innovation and increased pool of financial aid. We opposed the Student Union Initiative because it sought reconstruction of a student perk at the expense of students.
We use the same rationale with the Natatorium renovation. This may be viewed as essential to Rec Sports and a necessary piece of the overall campus master plan, but it’s a choice as to whether students want to pay for it.
In the debate held last Thursday between representatives of NatUP and No New Seg Fees, NatUP spokespeople claimed the addition will be built eventually, regardless of whether the measure gets approved this election.
If students are intent on the construction of a new Natatorium, then we will respect that decision. But we believe that if Rec Sports is so adamantly set on rehabilitating its facilities, it can learn to do so without a complete reliance on student money.
IP hash: 4397bfec
the majority of students who will not see the facility should not have to pay for the facility. there is no absence of ‘fiscal responsibility’ as you say, it would be grossly more unfair to have three classes of Badgers pay for something they will never use. I’d like to see your uproar there.
the SERF ‘reconstruction’ that you speak of is a complete lie and would never ‘likely cost more than the natatorium’ I’m appalled by this misinformation, in what I once believed to be a credible publication.
Lastly, having witnessed the debate last Thursday first hand, when the spokespeople claimed that the addition would be built eventually, they were alluding to the fact that the students will continue to fight for this project, because the problems of overcrowding and inadequacy will never fade until something is done, and the time to do so is NOW!
Vote YES this Monday- Wednesday!!!
IP hash: be24f620
Since “the majority of students who will not see the facility should not have to pay for the facility”, there is no democracy here. Talk about irresponsibility!
I agree with the message in this article. I also believe that “if Rec Sports is so adamantly set on rehabilitating its facilities, it can learn to do so without a complete reliance on student money.”
We are already paying for Union South with seg fees, and it was defeated in two votes until it was pushed to a paper ballot!
$108 in additional seg fees for 30 years is a poor choice… but according to the NatUp website FAQ, that is only the beginning.
VOTE NO or else vote irresponsibly.
IP hash: 55f9d228
There is no doubt in my mind that if Rec Sports would have put this proposal forward with students flipping the bill now instead of Fall 2013that the BH Editorial Board would have stated they could not support the vote because students would have to pay for a facility they would not use. NO QUESTION.
And I guess Rec Sports paying for the first 3 years of the project so current students, who had to use these outdated and overcrowded facilities, to the tune of over 1 million dollars is not considered “good faith?” Nor is the $500,000 from Athletics? Nor the 4-5 million dollars that will be requested from the state?
And I guess we’ll just say it one more time since it does not seem to get through to any of the opposition…THE SERF IS NOT AN OPTION AND WOULD COST TWICE AS MUCH AS THE NAT WITHOUT ADDING ANY SQUARE FOOTAGE TO THE CAMPUS!!!!!!!!!!!! READ THE FACTS WHY IT IS NOT AN OPTION! Read # 10 why it is not an option before you spout off why it should be addressed instead of the NAT. http://www.natup2010.com/#faq
There are NO plans to touch the SERF once a New Nat is completed. Any claim by your board contrary to this is irresponsible and a flat out lie.
It is truly sad an editorial board would not only be this biased (What do you have now, 8-9 op-ed articles against NatUp and only 1 for? Even though you have at least 8 more Op-Eds in favor of the project sitting there on your desk?), but also this misinformed. Hopefully the students see past the biased shortsightedness of this board.
IP hash: 90ce0d54
A flat out lie, eh?
Quoting from said FAQ, No.11:
“The renovation of the SERF is the final phase of the facility master plan but will not be addressed as a capital project until after the Natatorium project is completed. The SERF will likely undergo smaller upgrades as needed over the next several years.”
So, friend, either it’s horrendously written or you don’t know your own talking points.
IP hash: 912ee649
It seems to me like the editorial board has not fully considered these important issues in the upcoming election. The subsidy by Rec Sports is not “tactical”; it is the most fair way to prevent students who will not see, let alone use, the facility from paying for it. The Campus Master Plan outlines the only plans for renovation to the SERF as being extremely minor, as the SERF cannot expand outside its current lot. While we may think that private donations are abundant, even our National Runner Up Hockey team still does not have a practice facility. Let’s give the Nat referendum credit for providing students with the best possible options for a new facility, and let the students decide what they value without bias.
IP hash: 4de377c8
How much do you think the person who wrote the comments above is being paid per hour?
IP hash: 6f6acbae
Way too much. Independent students can’t afford more seg fees already.
IP hash: 7f89074f
The fact that everyone is claiming that students don’t have to pay until 2013 is ridiculous! They keep saying that RecSports is covering the costs. RecSports is also paying over $30,000 for the current NatUp campaign. The question is: where does RecSports get their money? That would be from current student seg fees. We are paying for a campaign and would also be paying for the cost of the new Nat from now until 2013. So, when someone says that “current students are not paying for something they will never use,” it is a lie. We are paying for RecSports to the tune of almost $2 million a year. They take up 5% of the seg fee budget and want to more than double the amount we are paying for future students. I hope a majority of you understand that you are paying for this already, and that future students should not have to have any more backdoor tuition hikes like we have seen with both the Union South Building Project, and the SAC building project. Vote NO for a new Nat! As a candidate for SSFC, I have promised to oppose raising Student Seg Fees. The new Nat is needed, but we need to find different ways of funding the project. If we keep raising Seg Fees for new projects, students will be paying thousands of dollars extra a year for these projects. We need to keep costs low for students. Please vote Nick Novak for SSFC to put a fiscally responsible voice on the committee! Please visit electnick.com for more info.
IP hash: e0a32d2d
Uh oh, fact check. Students will not be “paying thousands of dollars more per year.” I believe the number you were looking for was $54.19 per semester, that is $108.38 dollars per year more per student. Also, when considering whether students should pay more for things they will not benefit from: look around at the largest buildings around you; you use these every day, but did you pay for them? Students helped to pay for these even though they graduate too soon to see any benefit from them. It would be continuing the legacy to continue investing in the future. Nat it Up!
IP hash: 6fbcfc88
The difference being that the buildings we see around us were built for learning - this is a university, afterall. Assuming we were all to pay an extra $100 a year, I would much rather use that to help attract and retain excellent faculty. It is they who make UW an attractive institution. Why people think that we NEED a new gymnasium and how they eagerly consent to yearly seg fees hikes leaves me gobsmacked.
IP hash: 98bd537a
The thing is, the Nat is too small and, well, crappy, to handle the overflow that would come from renovating the SERF. That’s why it needs renovation first. All other Big 10 schools have AMAZING sports facilities, UW-Madison is basically the worst of the bunch, and its a little shameful. It sucks that STUDENTS have to pay for something that STUDENTS will use - but that’s the way the world works, you give a little and get a little. Where else would the money come from? There aren’t that many people will thousands or millions of dollars laying around to just give to schools when they need an improvement. It would be great if that were the case, but its not. In an era where obesity and poor health are on the rise, I think it’s the University’s duty, and the student’s responsibility, to create high quality exercise spaces for people to learn to develop healthy habits that will follow them throughout their lifetime. If the Nat and the SERF are too overcrowded to allow all students who want to improve their health, it does a diservice to both the University but also the country. Unfortunately, this will cost money, but so does everything. The Nat needs to be done first, it is older. Besides, the SERF was just re-done a few years ago, and it can wait.
IP hash: be89541e
okay #1 - CAPS DO NOT HELP GET THE POINT ACROSS, THEY ARE JUST ANNOYING!
2 - As a freshman I was in the SE dorms and in the two years since then I have lived on the east side. That said, I have never, in my entire college career, used the NAT. All I see is the horribly overcrowded SERF. And out of all of my friends I don’t know one who regularly works out at the NAT…This seems as though it is a pet project of someone or some group. Personally I feel Humanities and Social Sciences buildings need work before any fees are spent on rec facilities, but you know, who needs academic buildings?IP hash: 74d6ed0b
10:37-
If you were an informed student, you would know that seg fees cannot be used for the social science or humanities buildings. Seg fees can only be spent on health services, child care services, student services, recreation services, and stadiums, according to the statute itself.
Please do not vote if you don’t know what you are talking about.
IP hash: 48406115
This visualization might be useful?
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/118481/frames_seg.html
IP hash: 5fe6f87b
When the Athletic Department was in dire straights in the early 1990’s due to mismanagement and overspending in the 1980’s the students were asked to pay a surcharge. Now that the students athletic facilities are outdated it is time to ask for the funding back.
Why not TAX the Athletic Department or at least get a big share of the BUCKY BADGER and WISCONSIN LOGO LICENSING FEES to upgrade the general campus athletic facilities. It is fair, it is the right thing to do. UW Athletic Department uses the logos at the consent of the governed in this case THE STUDENTS.
Upgrades have been made to, Baskeball, Hockey, Football, Women’s Softball, and Track Stadiums. (add Rowing) When will the SERF and NAT get a chance to be upgraded. Who annoited all the revenue from selling Bucky to just one campus entity? Was it on a student ballot?
Students bailed out the Athletic Department big time. Now is the time for Bucky to help out the student body.
IP hash: d26b08bf
I would love to know why students are unable to take advantage of the huge exercise spaces that are available on campus that do not include a building? Apparently running and biking are not viable options? There is only the entire Arboretum and Lakeshore Path along with an abundance of side walks and paths to work out on.
And for all of you that would complain about running in the winter, take the money that would be spent on seg fee increases and you could buy warm weather clothing.
If Rec Sports should do anything it is purchase more open field space for residents to play sports outdoors. Soccer fields, tennis courts, basketball courts. All of these things are sorely lacking on this campus and especially in the SE.