New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

[jack power]

Re: New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

no doubt coercion of some sort.

Asinine! The students should it no way incur more costs to send other students through school.

Count me as against the stadium if it:

1. causes any more cost to students.
2. moves the fans away from the field. ( and if you don't think this is going to happen we should bet on it. I love taking other peoples money)

Flame on.

What makes you think there is coercion?

[propar80]

Re: New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

no doubt coercion of some sort.

Asinine! The students should it no way incur more costs to send other students through school.

Count me as against the stadium if it:

1. causes any more cost to students.
2. moves the fans away from the field. ( and if you don't think this is going to happen we should bet on it. I love taking other peoples money)

Flame on.

Wouldn't the students be making THEIR own decision on raising THEIR fee if THEY vote for it? Maybe I'm missing something.

[Nidaros]

Re: New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

no doubt coercion of some sort.

Asinine! The students should it no way incur more costs to send other students through school.

Count me as against the stadium if it:

1. causes any more cost to students.
2. moves the fans away from the field. ( and if you don't think this is going to happen we should bet on it. I love taking other peoples money)

Flame on.

If you want another half assed CAS, just keep thinking this way. Its 1950 thinking, and look what it got us yellow bleachers and porta potties.

I sentence you to read Stadium for State chapter 20 pg 151-158, College on the Hill by Amy Dunkle and VJ Smith.

[Theee Catrabbit]

Re: New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

If you want another half assed CAS, just keep thinking this way. Its 1950 thinking, and look what it got us yellow bleachers and porta potties.

I'm with the guy who was there! I'm not arguing the fact they move the bleachers away from the field. Was just wondering what the thought process would be that would cause that(if they do.)

LET THE INTERNET SPECULATION BEGIN!

[Nidaros]

Re: New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

I'm with the guy who was there! I'm not arguing the fact they move the bleachers away from the field. Was just wondering what the thought process would be that would cause that(if they do.)

LET THE INTERNET SPECULATION BEGIN!

I really don't know, but for the students to duck out again on building a football stadium is unreasonable. I get the part about increase in costs for the average student, but here is a chance to be part of something that will be around for decades.

[jack power]

Re: New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

Wouldn't the students be making THEIR own decision on raising THEIR fee if THEY vote for it? Maybe I'm missing something.

You're not missing anything. I think slosho's outrage is premature. The report states there was a dialog initiated with the students about raising fees to cover operating expenses. The numbers that were submitted do NOT include any money from an increase from student fees.

[Nidaros]

Re: New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

You're not missing anything. I think slosho's outrage is premature. The report states there was a dialog initiated with the students about raising fees to cover operating expenses. The numbers that were submitted do NOT include any money from an increase from student fees.

This is correct and what was stated in TV blog today. I guess, the new stadium and the related resistance gets me going prematurely too. So for that I apologize to slosho, you don't have to read the source I mentioned in the other post.

[slosho]

Re: New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

What makes you think there is coercion?

I don't know but I would not Doubt there is a Well if you want to keep good seating.. kind of discussion going on.

Perhaps that word is a little too harsh but It was the closest I had to use. I have no proof the only exhibit I have is what happened in Frost.

@Nadiros, Perhaps you are right the students should not duck out. If that is the case I vote we charge the students to attend games and end all welfare given to the Ath, Dept. via Student fees.

I'm not against the project. I against making the students foot the bill. and no doubt they would be voting on it, However they are really forcing those who come after them to foot the bill without choice.

I Love our athletics, But I think they should survive without being paid for by students. Raise the gate fee if need be I'll pay it gladly. And I'll do so without being burdened with Debt (unlike most students). (think about the ramifications of that for awhile; paying for someones else's tuition for 30 years, Because believe it or not its reality)
To Illustrate this example Think about the $ a student (4 Yr 130Cr Hr to grad) would spend in addition ($227) and if that $227 was not paid off for 30 yrs how much it costs with the average 6.8% Loan rate ($1303!). So, do you still think the students should cover operational costs?

[slosho]

Re: New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

You're not missing anything. I think slosho's outrage is premature. The report states there was a dialog initiated with the students about raising fees to cover operating expenses. The numbers that were submitted do NOT include any money from an increase from student fees.

Correct, However my outrage is over principal. The students should not be a part of the "who's going to pay for it?" discussion.

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

Wouldn't the students be making THEIR own decision on raising THEIR fee if THEY vote for it? Maybe I'm missing something.

There are two sides to this coin, IMO.

On the one side:

As Nidaros pointed out, the students should participate in bearing the financial burden of the stadium.

On the other side:

What percentage of student vote would be required to raise student fees? A majority? Then if 50.1% of voting (what is the percentage of actual voting students?) could determine a higher rate of student fees for every single student from now until Jesus comes. For a football stadium. That means kids 30 (50? 100?) years from now will still be paying for a "new" stadium long after alumni/friends have ceased paying. LOL if anyone thinks the fee would be brought back down once the debt is paid. Not to mention that maybe 3,000 out of a 12,000+ student body actually attends football games. I wonder what percentage of SDSU students attend zero football games during their time on campus... I bet its more than 30%.

IMO, a more equitable way to have students share a little burden would be to sell football tickets to students for $1-$2 dollars a game. So if a student wants to attend games, they would register in the spring to receive the tickets and pay $10 at that time. Of course that wouldn't result in nearly enough money. So we'll take money from thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of current and future students against their will, so the alumni/friends don't have to pony up. I guess that's the way the world works, hey we voted on it after all.

[slosho]

Re: New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

There are two sides to this coin, IMO.

On the other side:

What percentage of student vote would be required to raise student fees? A majority? Then if 50.1% of voting (what is the percentage of actual voting students?) could determine a higher rate of student fees for every single student from now until Jesus comes. For a football stadium. That means kids 30 (50? 100?) years from now will still be paying for a "new" stadium long after alumni/friends have ceased paying. LOL if anyone thinks the fee would be brought back down once the debt is paid. Not to mention that maybe 3,000 out of a 12,000+ student body actually attends football games. I wonder what percentage of SDSU students attend zero football games during their time on campus... I bet its more than 30%.

IMO, a more equitable way to have students share a little burden would be to sell football tickets to students for $1-$2 dollars a game. So if a student wants to attend games, they would register in the spring to receive the tickets and pay $10 at that time. Of course that wouldn't result in nearly enough money. So we'll take money from thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of current and future students against their will, so the alumni/friends don't have to pony up. I guess that's the way the world works, hey we voted on it after all.

Thank you for Understanding the logic of my argument. "Must Spread Rep elsewhere"

[WestSideRabbit]

Re: New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

If anyone wants to know what the Student Association has been talking about on this issue, read the @collegian_live tweets from the SA meetings this fall. This has been an on going discussion with the senate clearly divided much like the discussion here.

[JimmyJack]

Re: New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

The only saving grace here is that the proposed student fee increase is relatively small ($1.75 per credit hour or $210 over four years for a 120-credit degree). Do I like it? Not at all, but this is the "public" university system we have now. Given that state taxpayers only pay about 30 percent of the educational costs anymore (and almost none of the construction or maintenance costs), without additional student contributions, literally nothing new would ever be possible on any state university campus.

I should add that SDSU remains a very good bargain, given the education students get vs. the costs involved.

[Nidaros]

Re: New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

There are two sides to this coin, IMO.

On the one side:

As Nidaros pointed out, the students should participate in bearing the financial burden of the stadium.

On the other side:

What percentage of student vote would be required to raise student fees? A majority? Then if 50.1% of voting (what is the percentage of actual voting students?) could determine a higher rate of student fees for every single student from now until Jesus comes. For a football stadium. That means kids 30 (50? 100?) years from now will still be paying for a "new" stadium long after alumni/friends have ceased paying. LOL if anyone thinks the fee would be brought back down once the debt is paid. Not to mention that maybe 3,000 out of a 12,000+ student body actually attends football games. I wonder what percentage of SDSU students attend zero football games during their time on campus... I bet its more than 30%.

IMO, a more equitable way to have students share a little burden would be to sell football tickets to students for $1-$2 dollars a game. So if a student wants to attend games, they would register in the spring to receive the tickets and pay $10 at that time. Of course that wouldn't result in nearly enough money. So we'll take money from thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of current and future students against their will, so the alumni/friends don't have to pony up. I guess that's the way the world works, hey we voted on it after all.

After giving it some thought, I think your post does represent much wisdom. What role the students play is a difficult question to answer. I just found my student activity fee from 1962-63. There were 19 potential holes to be punched and I have a total of seven holes punched, but like many of the current students, I was working part time at the dairy research unit, which conflicted with game times. Its weird to think that 50 years ago, the ticket takers relied on a good old fashioned hand punch to record attendance as contrasted with bar code hand held machines used today. I think 50 years ago, the reason the students were called on in a big way was because of the nature of fund raising. This was a absolutely new concept asking alumni for money and "hoards" for a football stadium, and when that drive went sour, they then turned to the students. It was a bad deal all around, and they voted on it three times with all votes being in negative totals.

This time around we have a much better mind driving this whole affair namely, Justin Sell, who is a charmer in working with everyone.
If I am not mistaken, I believe the new stadium will have more use in terms of social events and small parties. It looks like the areas are enclosed and could be used for those purposes. This should raise some extra revenue, plus the UPD is moving in some of the area, so I don't think the argument that the stadium will have limited use and no one has raised that argument, but it was everywhere 50 years ago.
Students have not changed in attending games. 30 percent might even be on the high side.

[TK22867]

Re: New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

I LOL'd at the statement regarding burdening future students with debt based on the vote of the current students. I'm trying really, really hard to bite my tongue and not bring this into the political spectrum.

Also, I think it's pretty much been decided that there will be less slope to the new grandstands. We will be further from the field. I don't know if it is because of code, or what. It seems to me that most new NFL stadiums have less slope on the lower decks than they do on the upper decks. We'll just have to deal.