The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Consider choices in election

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Eric Varney:

Students add to Madison's mystique (October 6, 2005)
UW Transportation hurts SAFE services (December 1, 2005)
Consider choices in election (March 23, 2006)
ASM Chair reacts to election gone awry (March 31, 2006)

by Eric Varney

Thursday, March 23, 2006

After publicly denouncing the Wisconsin Union last month, I've seen and heard quite a spectrum of reactions. From receiving accolades from SLAC members to getting a plenitude of dirty looks from Union folk, it is incredibly apparent that this campus is torn over whether or not to fund construction on the Unions using segregated fees. Let me clarify where I'm coming from and hopefully this will provide some insight to you and other students as to how you should vote.

Various Union representatives and others have put together a phenomenal plan for renovating Memorial Union and demolishing and rebuilding the shit-stack that is Union South. There's no question that both buildings badly need to be revamped and I'd really like to see it happen. The part that I'm most excited about is the fact that enough students signed petitions to put the decision on the ballot. Instead of letting a few people determine what happens, the entirety of the student body will have a chance to decide.

For those of you who know little about the proposed plan, here's a little background info. Renovations are planned for Memorial Union to improve various facilities, as well as meet federal building code for people with disabilities, and to expand the Hoofers section. At Union South, a completely new building will be erected in hopes of popularizing that end of campus and making it the technology center. Both of these are in line with the campus master plan, which includes potentially building a third Union on the west end of campus in the years to come.

I would be more than thrilled to see new facilities, but at a cost of around $150 million, it really depends on who's footing the bill. The referendum that all students will be voting on is to increase seg fees by $96 per semester, an addition that will last for 30 years. After breaking out the financial calculator, this finance major determined the current value of that would be approximately $150 million, assuming an interest rate of three percent. This means non-student donations would only offset minimal financing charges and students would pay for all construction costs. Everything!?!

This number may seem a bit absurd, but it's right. Not that Herb Kohl needs another campus building named after him, but there's got to be a way to secure some funds from somebody other than students. Hell, this university has one of the largest endowments in the country, topping more than $1 billion. The funding is out there, people just have to look.

I'd also like to point out that ASM is helping to construct and finance a new Student Activity Center, which will be completed at the University Square site in Fall 2009, for the cost of only $20 per year in seg fees for 20 years. Seeing as how we're already getting a completely new building at a fraction of the cost, should students pay $192 more a year for the Union, on top of the ninety-some-odd-dollars we're already paying annually to keep water running and the floors clean at the Union? The one thing I find highly ironic about the whole situation is my being commended by SLAC patriarch Ashok Kumar. Six months ago, I was one of the very people who defeated the SLAC referendum and saved the Union from having to potentially pay millions of dollars for limited term employees. Oh, how the tables have turned.

Similar to me, SLAC has taken a stance against the Union referendum — but for a completely different reason. Their concern with the plan is merely related to LTEs who work at the Union. Although there will also be a referendum related to this, this issue is a facet some students may wish to consider before voting to fund Union construction.

And, obviously, aside from the aforementioned issues, many students, possibly including you, either have their own opinions about the Union or are completely apathetic to the entire thing. Either way, it is absolutely imperative that students participate in this decision now, as it will affect this campus for years to come.

When the ASM elections occur next week, March 28-30, I encourage you to vote for what you think is right, not what you read on the sidewalk, not what somebody tells you, and definitely not what this pretentious politico pontificates. Look at the facts. New facilities would be pretty sweet and they're definitely needed, but does the cost to students warrant it? Only you know the answer.

Eric Varney (ecvarney@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in finance, marketing, and history and is the Chair of ASM

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (March 23, 2006 @ 7:56am):

Eric, your logic is flawed in a couple of ways:

These type of projects are paid not by cash, but by the purchase of bonds when the project starts. Meaning, you don't pay the cost up front(because you rarely have it in cash that early in a project), but over a certain number of years, with interest. So the cost today of the building may be estimated at 150, but the escalated cost is more (when you include interest on the bonds and inflation of the value of the dollar), but the equivalent is so many dollars today. The same is true with the Student Activity Center

Also, the Student Activity Center is not a "brand new building", per se, it is in reality, two floors in a private/public development. Meaning a private developer with $$ is fronting most of the cash to demolish and build the actual building , therefore taking away significant costs; ASM is paying to be a (small) part of it.

Anonymous (March 23, 2006 @ 10:35am):

Eric Varney, let me commend you for putting together a nice letter. I'm saying this in all sincerity. I was pleasantly surprised to see how you presented facts...for the most part.
MAJOR CORRETION:
Students will NOT be footing the entire project. Please visit our website at www.union.wisc.edu/wufip and look at the powerpoint. Students contributions will pay for phase 1 which include the rebuilding of Union South and the Theater Wing at Memorial Union.

This therefore means that other streams of revenue are paying for the rest of the Memorial Union renovations and upgrades.

While this may seem a bit unbalanced, a new building vs. renovations....in all reality, the contrsuction of Memorial Union actually exceeds the cost of the new south campus union. This can be attributed to artisans and material costs which are greater for Memorial Union in order to preserve its historic nature.

NEXT CORRECTION:
I am also all for the project. I would LOVE IT if someone else paid for the project so that I could continue to freeload off of alumni gifts. However, this is not possible. In case you haven't noticed, this campus is under massive construction thanks to our friend Al Fish. All of that $1 billion dollars is accounted for for academic buildings and other university projects. This means that most of the big donors who would make a difference in the WUFIP plan, have already been shoulder tapped.

Here's the really COOL thing though. If, and I hope it happens, the Union finds a major donor that will assume a large portion of the construction costs, STUDENT SEGREGATED FEES WILL BE DECREASED ACCORDINGLY. It's right there in the referendum language. If passed, the Union is bound to such language.

Eric Varney has it right: vote informed.

Questions? www.union.wisc.edu/wufip has FAQs, powerpoints, and comment box!

Anonymous (March 23, 2006 @ 11:18am):

I'm voting no because I'm tired of waiting for new construction to start and finish and I wont see the benefit of my money forgone.

Anonymous (March 23, 2006 @ 12:51pm):

WUFIP definitely is more organized; however, anti-referendum folks are even more organized. SLAC and College Republicans are uniting to defeat it... say what? I say, if the Lefties, the neo-Cons, and the Moderates all want it to die, might as well shoot it now to save it the pain.

Looks like WUFIP has candy-stripers and cheerleaders trolling on the BH website though.

Anonymous (March 23, 2006 @ 1:59pm):

I'm voting yes to WUFIP

Anonymous (March 23, 2006 @ 5:55pm):

I don't like how Eric Varney continually speaks for ASM without any consideration of the opinions of the actual ASM members. ahhhhhhhhhhh! i don't like it.