Advertisement

SDSU Students Reject Facility

March 01, 1986|STEVE DOLAN

SAN DIEGO — The second vote was closer than it has been, but San Diego State students have again turned down a proposed 8,500-seat, on-campus recreation facility that could have ultimately housed Aztec athletic teams.

The proposal was defeated, 3,966-3,133, in voting which took place Monday through Thursday. When the facility was first voted on in 1981, it was defeated by almost a 2-to-1 margin.

Paul Kennedy, an Associated Students council member, said the main obstacle was that students were being asked to increase tuition fees by up to $35 per semester to fund the proposed $20-million facility.

"No matter what the issue, asking students to self-impose fees is difficult to pass," said Bill Earley, Associated Students president. "The feeling I got from students I talked to is that the '80s are the 'me' generation. Students said, 'there is nothing in it for me, I won't benefit, and that's why I won't support it.' "

SDSU's existing on-campus facilities are Peterson Gym, built in 1961, and the Women's Gym, built in the 1930s. The men's and women's basketball and volleyball teams practice in Peterson Gym. All play home games in Peterson Gym except the men's basketball team, which plays at the Sports Arena.

The proposal arose after nearly 5,000 students signed a petition last spring in support of another on-campus facility. According to the proposal, athletic teams would have third priority--behind student recreation and student-sponsored events such as concerts and lectures--in the facility. Athletic teams would have been required to rent the facility from the student body.

"At this point in time, we need to regroup and think of the message students are sending to us," Earley said. "We did have 5,000 send a message through a petition, and we had 4,000 say they wouldn't pay, at least through a $35 fee increase. With the fee increase, I wonder at what level they would have responded. Would it have been any fee at all, or is a $35 fee just too much?"

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|