Although Chancellor Biddy Martin declared this the Year of the Humanities, today we vote on the remodeling and expansion of the Natatorium. The Nat is an object of aesthetic scorn among students and faculty for its uninviting exterior and apparent lack of up-to-date workout equipment. But during a time of already rising segregated fees and a rough economy, we cannot possibly condone the construction of a replacement athletic facility that will rely on the lopsided blitz of a financial plan proposed by NatUp 2010.
NatUp 2010, the group leading the charge for the renovations, feels the construction is necessary because of the Nat's current condition. While the Nat is by no means perfect it still adequately serves its purpose. The Nat's primary users are Lakeshore residents and people who are tired of dealing with the crowds at the Southeast Recreation Facility, not nearly enough people to warrant the cumbersome financial proposal.
The only way the Nat renovations make sense is if we take the hypotheticals into consideration. Lakeshore residences are supposed to expand sometime soon, allowing for more students. At that point, we should consider an athletic facility to accommodate those students. But we should wait for Lakeshore construction to begin and secure another funding source in the meantime.
The SERF will also need renovations at some point, so the Nat expansion would make more sense if that plan were in the cards. Rec Sports has a master plan that culminates in the remodeling of both athletic facilities, but on NatUp 2010's website it appears SERF renovations are just a tepid afterthought to support Nat remodeling. Until we see a full, university-supported master plan it seems rather pointless to move ahead with the Nat reconstruction, especially when considering the funding sources.
Neither of the aforementioned reasons does anything to let us ignore what is actually going on. We would be voting to raise seg fees for students in the future. Sure, most of us will not get to use the new Nat, but does it make sense that we OK the project and then pass on the bill? We have no vested interest in the rebuilding, especially seeing that the current facility meets most of our needs regularly.
First and foremost, we are an academic institution, and prospective students know this is far more important than our workout facilities. We are already raising seg fees for the Madison Initiative, a much more worthwhile endeavor that will impact the overall worth of our current degrees as well as those to come.
The idea of raising seg fees for future classes sits awfully with us, even as college students who are used to putting things off. The current Nat plan leaves us with far too many questions and relies too much on hypotheticals to be effective.
