2008 Woodie Awards
New union,Green Fund don't jibe
Issue date: 4/18/08 Section: Rocket Letters
To the editor:
Upon reading the newspaper last Friday, I was elated to find a front-page article on the passing of the Green Fund referendum ("Green Fund referendum favored by students," April 11).
The article stood as a paragon of what we should be conscious about. Unfortunately, it was overshadowed by the other two front-pagers.
A new union and a $2 million parking garage in the works? These projects totally undermine any progress made by the Green Fund.
Both projects are supported by the student body, yet they exist as a paradox to a campus on which 86 percent of those students who voted did so in favor of an environmental referendum. I suspect that of those 13.7 percent of slack-jawed yokels who voted against it, 100 percent voted yes to a new union and are complaining about the "parking problem."
Has anyone considered the truth of the parking problem? There are no spaces because those who don't need to drive do. How many spaces are taken by those who live across the street or within walking distance?
Half of the drivers are perfectly capable of walking to class. Likewise, I've noticed the same cars sitting outside of my building for weeks at a time. Is it necessary to park here if you drive once a month? If students would take the initiative to solve the "parking problem" themselves (i.e., by not driving), we wouldn't need to rely on the university to solve it for us by paving and building.
We need more useless buildings like we need higher tuition. I'm not sure who thinks we need a ballroom, restaurants, and other hoopla. Probably the same people who think we need a gazebo in the quad and a graffiti wall, whatever that is. Probably the same people who are on SGA, who run unopposed, only two of whom supported the Green Fund in a vote. Have those who voted yes to the Green Fund considered this? Where are you going to play Frisbee or catch when there is no more grass, only pavement surrounded by a sea of automobiles?
Perhaps not enough people are taking Dr. Burkhart's environmental geology class. Perhaps the notions of a green planet are dead. Or perhaps some greedy people need to balance their wants with their needs.
Either way, the act of wanting a green campus while wanting a new union and parking garage is an exercise in futility.
Michael Chiappini
Freshman
English literature
Upon reading the newspaper last Friday, I was elated to find a front-page article on the passing of the Green Fund referendum ("Green Fund referendum favored by students," April 11).
The article stood as a paragon of what we should be conscious about. Unfortunately, it was overshadowed by the other two front-pagers.
A new union and a $2 million parking garage in the works? These projects totally undermine any progress made by the Green Fund.
Both projects are supported by the student body, yet they exist as a paradox to a campus on which 86 percent of those students who voted did so in favor of an environmental referendum. I suspect that of those 13.7 percent of slack-jawed yokels who voted against it, 100 percent voted yes to a new union and are complaining about the "parking problem."
Has anyone considered the truth of the parking problem? There are no spaces because those who don't need to drive do. How many spaces are taken by those who live across the street or within walking distance?
Half of the drivers are perfectly capable of walking to class. Likewise, I've noticed the same cars sitting outside of my building for weeks at a time. Is it necessary to park here if you drive once a month? If students would take the initiative to solve the "parking problem" themselves (i.e., by not driving), we wouldn't need to rely on the university to solve it for us by paving and building.
We need more useless buildings like we need higher tuition. I'm not sure who thinks we need a ballroom, restaurants, and other hoopla. Probably the same people who think we need a gazebo in the quad and a graffiti wall, whatever that is. Probably the same people who are on SGA, who run unopposed, only two of whom supported the Green Fund in a vote. Have those who voted yes to the Green Fund considered this? Where are you going to play Frisbee or catch when there is no more grass, only pavement surrounded by a sea of automobiles?
Perhaps not enough people are taking Dr. Burkhart's environmental geology class. Perhaps the notions of a green planet are dead. Or perhaps some greedy people need to balance their wants with their needs.
Either way, the act of wanting a green campus while wanting a new union and parking garage is an exercise in futility.
Michael Chiappini
Freshman
English literature
