Editorial: Tread carefully with student fees

When the voters reject a proposal that would increase their taxes, you don't bring up the proposal again shortly thereafter. That appears precisely what University of Arizona President Peter Likins is attempting to do by planning another referendum on a Student Union renovation fee after students overwhelmingly voted it down last year by a 3,168 to 1,068 vote. Does Likins think that students have such short memories that they will have forgotten all about it? Or are the administration and the Associated Students "leadership" planning on merely clothing the proposal in different clothes?

Students rejected the $40 per semester fee for various reasons. First of all, the state legislature would be less likely to appropriate funds to the university if it saw that students were willing to pay for services themselves. Secondly, there are less expensive alternatives that have not been considered, such as apportioning the cost of renovating the building to the businesses that want to be inside it.

Binding future students

There is something inherently unfair about voting on a fee that will primarily affect the next generation - we should not be the ones to decide their fate. Many of us will have graduated before the fee is required or the renovations have been completed, yet the fee will continue for up to 25 years. So the bulk of the fee will be paid by students who never got a chance to vote on it. Is this fair? Hardly. The decision should be up to those students will be primarily responsible for the fee, not just ones who will end up paying into it for only a few semesters, if at all.

Are all the proposals necessary?

There has been precious little discussion about why we need these Student Union renovations. Examining the list of services and changes the proposed renovations entails, it comes to mind that perhaps the proposals administrators and student leaders are considering are too expensive and far-reaching. Do we really need gobs of banking and other retail services? If anything, the banks should be paying US for the tremendous advantage of being located on campus - probably one of the most lucrative markets in Tucson. Similarly, why is the money going to develop a food court with national and local food choices, when those companies should be paying US for coveted space?

Either someone is really stupid, or this proposed fee is not really going to go for the purposes stated. Basic economics states that the party that values the commodity the most will pay for it, not the other way around. As evidenced by students' overwhelming defeat of the referendum last year, students do not value these new and improved services as much as administrators believed. There is no reason to believe that has changed. However, the companies making and producing these products and services place a high value on the university location.

Tread carefully

The students should not pay for the Student Union renovations. Last year or this spring. It not only is absurd to have students vote on a fee that will primarily be paid by future students, but it is bad economics to require students to pay for a fee that will go toward a facility in which many companies stand to make a fortune. President Likins and administrators should think again and reconsider how to tap the resources necessary for renovations.

Tread carefully on this one. You were burned once. Don't get burned again.