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 ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in finance, marketing, and history and is the Chair of ASM