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.