It appears support for the proposed Union fee increase is rivaling that of our most beloved increase of years past, the $3 “Drunk bus” fee of 2001 — or maybe the Union’s budget for get-out-the-vote efforts is just bigger than the other side’s.
Either way, it’s difficult to escape the public relations blitz that has reached its peak in these last few days before we vote. Yesterday’s Reveille featured a guest column penned by a Student Senator, a letter from our current SG president and several who hope to replace him, and an ad, covering more than half of one page, breaking down “The House that Students Built.”
Add to this media manipulation the posters and endless rainbow of orange and purple pamphlets hawking the new fee (and the Union) as the greatest thing since sliced bread, and I’m beginning to wonder why we as a student body haven’t offered up our plasma or vital organs to save the little Union that could. The place is, after all, “the front door of LSU,” and our “home away from home,” at least according to the pretty, colored pamphlets I mentioned.
There also are, of course, the three major SG tickets, all of whom have been increasingly visible on campus over the past week, and all of whom support the increase.
From the other side, the scarce resistance offered has been confined to a few letters to the editor and a Tiger Weekly poll, which indicated students actually do not favor the increase. This deserves mention because it is a stark contrast to the one-sided viewpoint we have been offered so far, but was such a laughable attempt at gauging public opinion (a random phone survey of barely 200 students?) that it holds little merit.
However one-sided it may be, the promotion of this fee has been dead-on in one way — the Union is in desperate need of repairs and updates. It needs more money than it currently receives in order to serve its clients (us) and without a revenue boost will continue its decline into obsolescence with regards to space, wiring and a host of other factors. The food court lines and lack of couches and meeting rooms will only worsen.
However, what the Union does not need, but what is a major part of its post-fee-increase plans, is a purely cosmetic makeover. This includes several “plazas” (whatever they entail) and an exterior façade that would make Frank Lloyd Wright take (Tiger) pause.
The strategy used by those pushing the fee was brilliant — they came to us with a plan which gives them everything they could possibly want and more, but have so far convinced us this fee is our only way to save the Union. It’s not.
If a $60 increase can pay for everything we need, plus a bunch of frilly, fluffy prettiness to show how great we are — how much to get just what we need? How much to update the wiring, fix the utilities, add more space and get the theatres up-to-date?
If I could tell you, I would, but I can’t — which nicely sets up major complaint No. 2: this money has not been earmarked. In other words, the Union either hasn’t decided, or hasn’t made public, what percentage of the fee will be spent on what projects. How nice. IF we decide to fund $54 million worth of renovations, THEN they tell us exactly how that money will be spent. Any logic scholars want to help me out with that?
We all, just like the Union folks, want to see repairs. I also acknowledge new funding will be required, and am willing to make that sacrifice — but not to the tune of 60 bucks a semester.
I sincerely hope after this proposition fails tomorrow, the student leaders and Union administration do not announce defeat and preach gloom and doom. Instead, they should roll up their sleeves and present a modified, more palatable plan to the students next spring — one that allows for the growth of the Union but doesn’t commit assault against Joe and Jane Student’s wallet.
As for tomorrow, Nancy Reagan said it best. Just say no.