By Matt Zwolinski
Arizona Daily Wildcat
April 10, 1998

Rec Center fee a 'shaft'

To the Editor:

Why are all students required to pay a $25 fee for the Student Recreation Center each semester? In effect, this amounts to a subsidy paid by scholars to athletes. Students who use the Rec Center regularly are getting a far greater value than their money would get them on the open market, whereas those who use it not at all are being shafted $50 every academic year.

Wouldn't it make more sense to charge individuals either on a per-use or on a subscription basis? Not only does this seem like a more intuitively fair arrangement, but it would also allow for the more efficient allocation of scarce resources. Instead of charging everybody the same $25 fee whether they use the gym at peak hours or in the middle of the night, the university could set up a schedule of fees, such that students who wish to be able to use the gym whenever they want could pay more, whereas those who agree only to come at the less popular times would pay less. This would do much to reduce the crowding caused by the "commons" situation now in effect.

It may be argued that without the universal fee, there wouldn't be enough revenue to run the gym. This might be true, but so what? If the Rec Center isn't providing enough of a service to support itself on the open market, then so much the better if we get rid of it. Better to let students spend the $25 on things they do want, and allow someone with a little bit more entrepreneurial skill take care of students' fitness needs.

Matt Zwolinski
Philosophy Graduate Student