ISU Rec upgrades...

[HiltonMagic]

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

This is exactly my point. No other group, organization, or marketing team presented any reasons as why somebody should vote no. All we heard was why this renovations are a positive, how they can help, yada yada yada. We get it. It'll be cool to have.

However, for people like me (and the poster I'm about to respond to), there are a lot of people who do not use the Rec centers. I walk, bike, and do other things to keep myself healthy. I don't want to have to cut back on one steak dinner at Legends to pay for everybody else to have a better time playing pick up games.

There are much better things that this $53 million could be going to. For example: Helser. Anybody live there? I walked through it the other day and felt like I needed to get a tetanus shot. The dorms are over-crowded, and the original plans to abandon and tear down Helser have been abandoned due to the fact that each year we admit more and more students.

How about much needed renovations to other buildings on campus? Gilman has seen better days, the Armory is a complete dump, Davidson is horrible, etc...

But instead, we put the money towards this.



1st of all - the tents would be fun. ;)

2nd of all - I agree with everything you said. There are other buildings that need the help much more than activity centers.




There are far more students who would choose ISU over other schools based on the shape that the classrooms and educational buildings are in rather than what the shape the rec centers are in.

It's nice to have those things, but seriously, there are so many more things that I'd rather see my fees increased for.

If you feel/felt so strongly against it, why didn't YOU form some sort of opposition, instead of complaining that no one else did??

[jaretac]

The fact is you can get your exercise a different way which, by definition, makes these improvement a luxury.

Further, I don't really care if it brings in more students. If this is such a selling point for the University than why don't the alumni get involved and help pay for it. What irritates me the most, is not the extra $20 or $100 a semester, it's that this is another item on the long list of fees that make attending ISU so expensive. And your only kidding yourself if you don't think that cost of tuition and fees has a impact on where someone attends college.

[SouthernHawk]

Originally Posted by HiltonMagic

If you feel/felt so strongly against it, why didn't YOU form some sort of opposition, instead of complaining that no one else did??

This is a lame argument. Sorry to sound like a douche, but it is. Just because somebody feels strongly about something doesn't mean they need to go out and change the world.

I'm just saying I would have liked a little less bias in the marketing. The university should have provided us with the information publicly, rather than supporting the proponents 100% and forgetting about the opponents.

Originally Posted by jaretac

The fact is you can get your exercise a different way which, by definition, makes these improvement a luxury.

Further, I don't really care if it brings in more students. If this is such a selling point for the University than why don't the alumni get involved and help pay for it. What irritates me the most, is not the extra $20 or $100 a semester, it's that this is another item on the long list of fees that make attending ISU so expensive. And your only kidding yourself if you don't think that cost of tuition and fees has a impact on where someone attends college.

+ rep. Couldn't agree more.

The fact of the matter is, there are already so many other things we're being charged for. I don't want to be charged for more luxeries, because in all likelihood, the renovations mentioned earlier will be something that the University feels is necessary, and will therefore add those to our fees.

Pretty soon, if we're not careful, ISU could be just as expensive as a private school.

[superfan]

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

This is exactly my point. No other group, organization, or marketing team presented any reasons as why somebody should vote no. All we heard was why this renovations are a positive, how they can help, yada yada yada. We get it. It'll be cool to have.

So where were the people telling everyone to vote yes? All the media I saw simply said, "Vote." No bias one way or the other. If there were so many people so vehemently opposed to the renovation, why didn't they organize and put out their own publicity? Why wasn't it voted down by a landslide? Voter apathy is still voter apathy.

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

There are much better things that this $53 million could be going to. For example: Helser. Anybody live there? I walked through it the other day and felt like I needed to get a tetanus shot. The dorms are over-crowded, and the original plans to abandon and tear down Helser have been abandoned due to the fact that each year we admit more and more students.

How about much needed renovations to other buildings on campus? Gilman has seen better days, the Armory is a complete dump, Davidson is horrible, etc...

But instead, we put the money towards this.

Wait, so it's not OK to spend money on something that might not affect you, but you have no problem raising tuition for projects you deem acceptable? I never lived in Helser (although I did spend around 4 years in Friley), why should my tuition go up? Why should everybody who lives off-campus pay for Helser? I haven't been in Gilman since Chem 167 in Fall of '03. Why should I pay for its renovation instead of the Chemistry department? I've never used the Armory, and I don't even know where Davidson is. Why should I pay to help those buildings out?

Honestly, I probably would vote yes for improvements to all those buildings, as well. The point is you can make the same kind of argument you're making about the Rec for anything else. It just gets back to how selfish we as Americans have become. "It won't affect me, so why should I care?" Same reason I think JP has to scratch and claw to get people to donate to the athletics department.

[superfan]

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

This is a lame argument. Sorry to sound like a douche, but it is. Just because somebody feels strongly about something doesn't mean they need to go out and change the world.

So we all should just wait for other people to take care of our problems for us? That reeks of laziness to me...

[SouthernHawk]

Originally Posted by superfan

So where were the people telling everyone to vote yes? All the media I saw simply said, "Vote." No bias one way or the other. If there were so many people so vehemently opposed to the renovation, why didn't they organize and put out their own publicity? Why wasn't it voted down by a landslide? Voter apathy is still voter apathy.



Wait, so it's not OK to spend money on something that might not affect you, but you have no problem raising tuition for projects you deem acceptable? I never lived in Helser (although I did spend around 4 years in Friley), why should my tuition go up? Why should everybody who lives off-campus pay for Helser? I haven't been in Gilman since Chem 167 in Fall of '03. Why should I pay for its renovation instead of the Chemistry department? I've never used the Armory, and I don't even know where Davidson is. Why should I pay to help those buildings out?

Honestly, I probably would vote yes for improvements to all those buildings, as well. The point is you can make the same kind of argument you're making about the Rec for anything else. It just gets back to how selfish we as Americans have become. "It won't affect me, so why should I care?" Same reason I think JP has to scratch and claw to get people to donate to the athletics department.

Apples and oranges.

People live in Helser, and a lot of incoming Freshman get placed in there. People don't live in the Rec, and nobody is forced to go there. It's a luxery.

Academic buildings and residence halls should always come before activity centers. This is an educational institution, not a recreational institution with education on the side.

And these aren't projects that I deem acceptable. They benefit the entire student body far more than rec center renovations ever will.

[SouthernHawk]

Originally Posted by superfan

So we all should just wait for other people to take care of our problems for us? That reeks of laziness to me...

No. The university should have presented both sides.

I know, I know. They didn't say "Vote yes". Instead, they listed the positives of the renovations, and after listing all the positives, encouraged people to vote.

I did not see anywhere that student fees were one of the main bullet points, or the fact that other buildings are in worse shape, or the fact that these renovations are going to be finished several years down the road when it doesn't even affect half the students currently attending here.

[Benny34]

There are much better things that this $53 million could be going to. For example: Helser. Anybody live there? I walked through it the other day and felt like I needed to get a tetanus shot. The dorms are over-crowded, and the original plans to abandon and tear down Helser have been abandoned due to the fact that each year we admit more and more students.

How about much needed renovations to other buildings on campus? Gilman has seen better days, the Armory is a complete dump, Davidson is horrible, etc...

You could easily add State gym to this list and while your at it throw in Lied with the A/C addition...Like the guy before me I would vote Yes to any of these.

[jaretac]

Originally Posted by superfan

Wait, so it's not OK to spend money on something that might not affect you, but you have no problem raising tuition for projects you deem acceptable? I never lived in Helser (although I did spend around 4 years in Friley), why should my tuition go up? Why should everybody who lives off-campus pay for Helser? I haven't been in Gilman since Chem 167 in Fall of '03. Why should I pay for its renovation instead of the Chemistry department? I've never used the Armory, and I don't even know where Davidson is. Why should I pay to help those buildings out?

Honestly, I probably would vote yes for improvements to all those buildings, as well. The point is you can make the same kind of argument you're making about the Rec for anything else. It just gets back to how selfish we as Americans have become. "It won't affect me, so why should I care?" Same reason I think JP has to scratch and claw to get people to donate to the athletics department.

I can't believe that SouthernHawk and I agree on something, but it is nice to know that there is someone else with half a brain. Everyone else sees a shiny object and they have to have it. Did your parents teach you no restraint?

[HiltonMagic]

I'm out, I remembered who I was arguing with (a hawkeye) and realized they can't have sense talked into them, no matter what the argument.

[SouthernHawk]

Originally Posted by HiltonMagic

I'm out, I remembered who I was arguing with (a hawkeye) and realized they can't have sense talked into them, no matter what the argument.

You're arguing with an ISU student right now - not an Iowa fan. This conversation does not relate to sports.

And you're also arguing with another ISU student other than myself.

This post is a cop out.

[superfan]

Originally Posted by jaretac

I can't believe that SouthernHawk and I agree on something, but it is nice to know that there is someone else with half a brain. Everyone else sees a shiny object and they have it. Did your parents teach you no restraint?

Glad to know someone could ace through ISU Engineering with half a brain. Burn your degrees now, folks! They're worthless!

Reality is, I'm usually very fiscally tight. Sure, I splurge every once in a while like last night (celebrating completion of AerE group senior design), but for the most part, I really watch what I spend. I paid off all my credit cards and paid for my fiance's engagement ring last summer by *gasp* saving for it by living on $20 per week and keeping the temperature in my apartment around 90 all summer to save money on energy. Oh Lord! Someone please teach me the meaning of restraint!

I just don't have a lot of pity when I'm already paying about double that of anyone who's an Iowa resident (plus the joy of differential tuition). I supported it because I honestly believe I would have been able to exercise a lot more had the facilities on the west side of campus rivaled those on the east side. Besides, not everyone can just "go exercise elsewhere." There might be people with bad joints or arthritis who can't handle high-impact motion of running on the sidewalk and might need an elliptical or a pool to exercise.

But hey, it doesn't affect us, so it's not our problem, right?

And with that, I'm going to sign off for the night. I've got an Astrophysics final in just over 11 hours that I really should start studying for.

[HandSanitizer]

If it helps recruiting....Cool with me.
Go to DMACC for 2 years and then to ISU if you have problems paying the extra $200 a year.

[clone2011]

If you want the Dept of Residence to fix up Helser, the Chem dept to fix up Gilman, and whatever other depts to fix their buildings, take it up with them. The Rec Services dept is paying for the renovations. They will be incurring the debt. Yes it affects the university overall but those other depts aren't going to pay up anything for this.

So you don't use the rec. Okay. Good for you. I don't use campus computers (use my own) or the student death (err...health...) center, but I still have to pay for those. It happens. Oh...by the way, you WON'T pay for it until you can USE it. That's one thing people definitely should have learned from the brochures, yet I'm still amazed by the number of people I hear talking on campus about how they don't want to pay for something they won't see.

And one last thing before I go to bed. Voters who want to vote no, always show up to vote. They go out of their way to vote against something they don't enjoy. They'll go to the rec for the first time in their life to vote "NO". The voters who vote yes are more likely to think "well someone else will do it..." and don't vote. Apparently the no voters who felt it important enough to say no made their statement. But MORE people voted yes, end of story. I think the saddest part of this deal is more people voted on these renovations than people who voted for GSB the last few years.

[SouthernHawk]

Originally Posted by clone2011

If you want the Dept of Residence to fix up Helser, the Chem dept to fix up Gilman, and whatever other depts to fix their buildings, take it up with them. The Rec Services dept is paying for the renovations. They will be incurring the debt. Yes it affects the university overall but those other depts aren't going to pay up anything for this.

So you don't use the rec. Okay. Good for you. I don't use campus computers (use my own) or the student death (err...health...) center, but I still have to pay for those. It happens. Oh...by the way, you WON'T pay for it until you can USE it. That's one thing people definitely should have learned from the brochures, yet I'm still amazed by the number of people I hear talking on campus about how they don't want to pay for something they won't see.

And one last thing before I go to bed. Voters who want to vote no, always show up to vote. They go out of their way to vote against something they don't enjoy. They'll go to the rec for the first time in their life to vote "NO". The voters who vote yes are more likely to think "well someone else will do it..." and don't vote. Apparently the no voters who felt it important enough to say no made their statement. But MORE people voted yes, end of story. I think the saddest part of this deal is more people voted on these renovations than people who voted for GSB the last few years.

1st of all - they are not paying for this - the students are. They are controlling the project.

And yes, more people voted for this than for GSB in recent years. But maybe if the GSB spends $15,000 on marketing for students to vote, they may see a voter increase.

Oh, and finally, your argument that the "no votes turn out because they have a cause" is extremely flawed. People from both sides turn out to vote because there is a cause. I don't even know where to begin with that one, so I'll leave it alone.