Top Ten Reasons Why Students Should Vote NO to Increased Fees!!

On March 17-19, 2010, students at the University of Toronto, Scarborough Campus, are to partake in a vote regarding whether students should pay for a portion ($30 million) of the construction costs for the 2015 Pan Am games athletic facilities. We list the top ten reasons why students should vote no to the levy (fee).

Just a heads up; at times I will utilize the abbreviation PAAC for Pan Am Aquatic Centre, referring to the venue in question, planned to be built at UTSC.

Firstly, and just so that everyone is made aware; the issue at hand is NOT whether students want the PAAC, but whether students support a student levy (fee) to pay for a portion of the construction process or not. UTSC will be required to pay $30million of the total $170million needed for the complex.

I will list several points in favour of a No-vote, and shall elaborate on each point.

Point 1: The actual cost students will be paying for these facilities are outrageous

On top of already increasing tuition fees, students are asked to pay an additional cost in this levy to pay for the construction of these facilities. The following values have been posted many times before, but allow me to reiterate:

THIS LEVY ALONE

- per year

2010 Fulltime student; $80 ($120 summer incl.) / Part-time student $16

2014 Fulltime student; $280 ($420 sum incl.) / Part-time student $56

2020 Fulltime student; $354 (4% increases) / Part-time student $70

TOTAL FOR ATHLETICS

- per year

2010 Full-time student $306 ($459 sum incl.) / Part-time student $61

2014 Full-time student $506 ($759 sum incl.) / Part-time student $101

2020 Full-time student $580 (4% increases) / Part-time student $116

For example, students enrolling at UTSC next year will pay $520 for the four years.

$80/year x 3years = $240 + $280 (in 2014) = $520

For example, students enrolled after 2014 will have to pay $1120 for the four years.

Students enrolled in 2020 will have to pay $1416 for the four years.

These values don’t include potential summer course loads or perhaps, an extra fifth year.

So to persecute a student concerned about this additional cost as “cheap” is hugely ignorant. Also, one should not think that ALL students work during the school year, for many do not. So in addition to assignments, exams, presentations, research, volunteering, maintaining necessary grades, attending school events, having something remotely close to a social life, and contesting already increasing tuition fees. In addition to arguing against the monetary pitfalls of this issue, it is also an issue of Principles; students should NOT be directly obligated to take on the responsibility of building an aquatic centre on campus – which ironically enough, will have NO UTSC affiliation by title (next point).

A student should NOT have to occupy his/her thoughts w/ shoveling driveways or working minimum wage shifts because the Mayor would like to leave his legacy in a city that will hardly remember him a decade from now. Students should have the freedom to spend their money how they see fit (considering how little of it most students have), not be obliged to pay for facilities which they didn’t even have the option of voting on (that’s referring to future students), and won’t have the time to regularly access.

Point 2: UTSC will not own these facilities

The planned Aquatic centre at UTSC will be owned either by the City or jointly by the City and UTSC, which means that it will be accessible to the ENTIRE city. It will have to be shared, and co-ordinated with other community groups, the general public and whoever else wishes to utilize the facilities (this is mentioned in the bid proposal). After all, the city seeks to turn a profit on the facilities does it not? If you doubt this point, contact Mayor David Miller’s office and inquire for yourself. Access to the facilities can be equated to accessing facilities at the YMCA, with specific times, days, costs, et cetera associated with usage for UTSC students. The pressure to share the facilities will be further burdened by the fact that so many aquatic facilities throughout the city are already being minimized or closed down, a FACT which some people seem oblivious to. Doing a little research, one will find the list of venues scheduled for closure or currently closed due to inactivity and no funding (ironically). Thus, these venues will be PUBLIC facilities, they will NOT be exclusive for UTSC students. So UTSC students should be aware that they will benefit equally with the rest of the public although contributing MORE than the average Torontonian.

The closure of countless city pools will affect the PAAC venue being built. When many neighbouring pools and aquatic centres in the city are closed down, where do you think the masses will flock to? Considering that the PAAC will be CITY owned, it will accommodate these citizens, especially since a profit can be maid. This directly affects UTSC students and their MONEY since they paid a levy for the PAAC and intuitively affects the facilities as well.

Point 3: A No vote does NOT mean we lose it all (ie. Lose to the rumoured Markham)

As for the PAAC itself, at the current time NO supporting documents (Pam Am, City, or otherwise) indicate that the Pan Am games Aquatic Centre will be situated anywhere else than at UTSC as planned, and to assume it will be moved to a mystical sight yet unknown to anyone, is purely speculative and conjecture. Let us try and utilize facts in this discussion. Rumours are circulating that the town of Markham will automatically get the facility if the UTSC votes No, however, I personally contacted the Manager of Policies and Planning for the town of Markham and he stated that although Markham is willing to build the facility, it is NOT an auxiliary plan nor has HOSTCO (the group set up to co-ordinate the games) approved any such proposal, and that any rumours circulating otherwise are simply just that. Furthermore, the actual bid proposal clearly states its intent on building the facilities in Scarborough and makes no mention of other areas, ie. Markham.

We should also mention the Varsity Stadium student levy situation with downtown UofT, whereby students voted No in 2002 regarding the Varsity Stadium downtown. This resulted in a less costly and more useful facility to the public, and hence the vote of No in that instance generated a Positive outcome. And they certainly did not ‘lose it all’.

Point 4: The 4% increase in student fees is due to inflation but should NOT be ignored

The Yes-campaign ignores the annual 4% increase in student fees. A 4% annual increase on the student levy is NOT necessary to compensate for inflation, as some people would have you believe. As stated during the Drop Fees rallies by the SCSU (ironically); “it would take 40 years for inflation to catch up to the average undergraduate tuition fees”. This statement is quoted directly from a Drop Fees rally site created BY the SCSU itself in November 2009! (http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=165580454050&index=1)

So to state that a 4% annual increase of this student levy is NEEDED to account for inflation is completely false. One would be hard-pressed to believe that it is NEEDED and NECESSARY, for in actuality it is simply another means of extracting funds from already struggling students. Ontario undergraduate university fees have increased 195% since 1990, with students on average graduating with over $27000 in debt, and yet students apparently have an abundance in extra income to accommodate this 4% annual increase which is NECESSARY to accommodate for inflation?

I find it interesting that during a recession, a 4% annual increase is to compensate for the fact that people generally (or will generally) have MORE money (??). And here I thought that inflation goes DOWN during a recession. Or did the fact that we’re in a recession and “people generally” have less expendable income during such a time - ESPECIALLY students - totally elude everyone? Or do students somehow generally have more income during a recession? How about compared to the rest of the population? Surely you jest, because we can’t lose sight of the fact that UTSC STUDENTS are paying for this levy, not the general populace. The simple answer is NO, post secondary students are one of the lowest earning demographics compared to the rest of the population – consult Statscan if you wish - however, due to rising tuition rates students have been required to work more to compensate for such costs (Neill 2006). [“The Effect of Tuition Fees on Students’ Work in Canada”]. Simply put, those endorsing this absurd Studeny Levy and it’s 4% annual increase are attempting to use economic terminology to condone the raising of an already outrageous fee. If the 4% increase of the Student Levy were NOT to occur at all, would that defy the very laws of economics, and inevitably throw the entire country into an economic downturn? NO. It’s just another means of leeching more money from students.

Point 5: Maintenance costs for these facilities are UNDER-estimated

Let us first address the fact that the majority of Olympic aquatic facilities which have been built have exceeded the original estimated costs. For example, London’s aquatic centre for the 2012 games has ALREADY exceeded expected costs by over $200 million (already converted from British Pounds). Operating costs yet to be addressed, if the UTSC aquatic venue continues on this consistent trend, WHO do you think will likely be obligated to contribute to these costs?

As for operating costs, it is logical to envision that having multiple facility directors, maintenance engineers, and all other associated staff will likely incur heavy operating costs for an Olympic venue. For London 2012 – after having overviewed their lengthy proposal budget – I uncovered that the total expected operating costs of the facilities will be $1.2 BILLION. Just to put that into perspective, this $70 million (referring to this endowment to be left by the Pan Am following the games) constitutes only 5% of the total operating costs London is expected to incur, and the INTEREST from $70 million (which is what’s actually being offered for maintenance in our case) will be less than the $70million itself and hence is NOT be sufficient or abundant enough to sustain maintenance costs.

In actuality, the 2007 Pan Am games in Rio de Janeiro Brazil exceeded expected costs by $1.8 BILLION. Can you comprehend this amount? So to calmly state that these 2015 Pan Am games in Toronto will fall WELL under budget and students won’t EVER be asked to pay more is simply misguided conjecture at best.

Point 6: These grandeur facilities will be used minimally by full-time students

How many students are occupying their lives with swimming or diving? How many, in addition to the aforementioned University obligations, will have the time to accommodate utilising the facilities in any form of consistent manner that compensates for the membership fee they will be required to pay? When you go around campus and ask students why they don’t utilize the current athletic facilities, the answer isn’t “it’s too small and crowded” or “there isn’t a swimming pool” as the Yes side would have everyone believe, it’s a TIME constraint issue. Students typically don’t have the time, especially being fulltime. Yes, an aquatic facility would be welcomed by students, but to give off the allure that ALL UTSC students will be eternally marching in mindless masses towards this Aquatic venue for the next 25 years is an utter delusion.

Coincidentally enough, we should NOT forgot all of the students who will still be paying from 2014-2020 for the facilities. Their fees will NOT be credited towards a membership. Comprehensively, it is stating that in addition to paying upwards of $2000 (per full time student) for the venue construction, students will be required to pay to ACCESS these venues as well by way of membership fees.

Point 7: The LRT Transit will be built regardless

The Yes campaign exclaims a new transit system will be built only if you vote Yes. The transit system will be built nevertheless, perhaps somewhat delayed, if that. To think that an entire transit system (accessible to the PUBLIC) will not be constructed because the UTSC campus decided not to provide funding for the Pan Am games is far-fetched and fabricated. As for the PAAC, if it so happens that a less extravagant facility is built for the games (following a No vote), then the transit system will still be constructed as planned, out of necessity if nothing else. If one observes the City of Toronto website with specific attention to the new LRT system, at no point in the benefits/FAQ section (or anywhere else for that matter) is “access the Pan Am games athletic venues” listed, nor would it be. Scarborough is one of the most densely populated sub-regions of Toronto, and hence the transit is built for the people, not the Pan Am venues.

Point 8: Students will also have to pay for a membership fee to use the facilities

Although current access to the athletic centre at UTSC is included in one’s tuition fees, access to the planned PAAC (Pan Am Aquatic Centre) will require a membership, which the student’s obligatory levy will generously account a small portion of. This membership fee will be in addition to the student fee paying for construction costs (ie. the levy).

Point 9: Jobs will be available but they will NOT be just for students

The Yes-campaign claims 'world class' jobs will be created for students. Considering the venue will not be fully University owned, competition for the positions will be great and hence, student employment will be minimal at best. The jobs created for builders will fall to the waist-side once the PAAC is built and hence aren’t permanent.

Point 10: The grandeur nature of these facilities is excessive and frankly, not a priority

UTSC will inevitably expand. Based on enrolment alone, let alone student needs, such an expansion is destined to occur. Yes, UTSC could do with new athletic facilities, but not in the scope of the unnecessarily monstrous aquatic centre being proposed, nor should students be outrageously gouged for its costs. A previous student drew the analogy to the new Queen’s University athletic facility, which is under-used and over-budgeted as a relevant example with which I agree.

In such circumstances, we must ask ourselves, is this a priority? As mentioned, a new athletics facility would be nice IF it were of reasonable size, fit for 10,000 students. However, these facilities are essentially excessive, while other legitimate concerns exist with UTSC, such as the lack of study space or the lack of available computers. Such concerns directly influence our education; the very reason we applied to UTSC, the very reason future students will apply to UTSC.

Future students should focus on their classes, not be bound to their jobs to pay for such facilities. Let’s put things into perspective, think logically and make the right decision. Vote No.

Blog – 1 year, 11 months ago by Vote_No to Sports in General. 1325 views, 1 response, 2 comments.