“Four Dollars, All Day” reads the hanging banner regarding the Columbia St. Mary’s parking structure, which has been open since the spring semester began. The lot opened as a result of UW-Milwaukee’s recent acquisition of the CSM building and in anticipation of the expiration of UWM’s lease with Milwaukee County for the Lakefront UPARK lots.
The Lakefront lots, comprised of Veterans and McKinley parks on Lake Michigan, have about 700 spots and are currently rented from the county for use in the UPARK System. This lease is largely paid for by student segregated fees, and as such, the lot remained fee free for students to use.
The Student Association has been working with university administration and county officials since last fall to find a better alternative for the displaced students, says SA President Travis Romero-Boeck.
“The real goal here is to find a place to let students park who had once parked at the Lakefront, who will … be unable to park there next semester.” Romero-Boeck said.
In December, the SA met with UWM administrators and County Parks Director Sue Black to discuss the option of renewing the lease, which the county ultimately decided against. “It was never the intention to have long term parking at the Lakefront,” Black said.
According to Romero-Boeck, the issue may not end there. “SA has been in contact with the county … From what I understand, Sue Black doesn’t even have the authority to say no [to the renewal of the lease], the county executive doesn’t even have the authority to say no, ultimately it would come down to the county board … that discussion is not closed yet.”
Romero-Boeck says his first option would be to renew the lease on the Lakefront property, but if that were unavailable his second preference would be “to find a lot on campus, that through the segregated fees that were once going to the UPARK lot we could allow students to park fee free. Whether that be in the Klotsche pavilion or whether that be in Columbia St. Mary’s I’m not sure.
The SA has also discussed the issue with the chancellor, who has the final say in any decision made. According to Romero-Boeck, the university is hiring an outside parking firm to do an analysis of the parking on campus and provide more input on the decision making process.
When asked when a final decision could be expected, Romero-Boeck replied, “Ultimately, we’re going to work until when we need, as late as possible, to find the best possible option and the option that makes the most sense mathematically and for the students … It’s not a rush and we’ll take the time that we need.”
Why is it the position of the SA President that all students should subsidize those who drive?
The campus is well served by transit and a pass is included in your tuition. It is past time for the student body to stop subsidizing the parking of a priviledged few. $4 dollars a day doesn’t even cover the debt service for the garage and is a more than reasonable fee for students when there are other options for getting to campus. Lets cut this subsidy and reduce student fees!
Dave: Why is is the position of students that people who don’t attend college should subsidize those who do?
@Daniel An education populace is good for society. Free parking isn’t. Pretty simple really.
Yes, but don’t you have to be able to get to campus to benefit from that education? The issues are one and the same. If I had to pay market rate for parking every day, or spend 3 hours a day sitting on or waiting for a bus, I’d be getting my degree online. Is that really the kind of campus community we want?
@Daniel They are not the same, you made the choice to live where driving to campus is required, and apparently want an extra subsidy from fellow students to do so.
Sure, I might get the benefit of discounted parking. But I also never use BOSS, the NHO, or attend any Athletic events, and I pay for all of those. There are plenty of programs that students pay for that only benefit a subset of people. But they all help to improve the campus community and student life as a whole. That’s their purpose. If you take a purely use-based approach to these things, there would be nothing left and UWM would be a pretty boring place. Nobody wants to go to a school that forces you into a certain lifestyle.
@Dan “But they all help to improve the campus community and student life as a whole. ” I’m not sure how free parking improves the “campus community,” if anything it helps to break up the community.
It means I can come to campus and interact with people and not be watching the clock or minimizing my trips. They raised parking rates for faculty and now many of my professors just don’t come to campus on Fridays. Do you want the same thing to happen to students?
@Dan “It means I can come to campus.” Yes it does, at the expensive of those who live on or near campus.
Daniel,
Using that logic, segregated fees should also remain as low as possible overall, so as not to price people out. If they can’t afford the free ride on the city bus, then they surely can’t afford an extra $125 per year in segregated fees to fund resource centers that 10 people a month use, right?
Is it just me, or are your comments indicative of a philosophy that creates, as Nick Kadulski and Alex Kostal would call, a “discount” university?
Which is it? Should college cost money and be exclusive for only the privileged through some socialist system of everyone paying for everyone else, or should efficiency and cost controls through eliminating bad-deal subsidies be the guiding principle?
Seems like Travis, Nick, and Alex support an exclusive education for only the well-to-do. Am I hearing though that you are against that philosophy?
@Dave: Don’t make me talk in circles. The whole institution of public education requires that some people get benefits at the expense of others. There are dozens of other programs on campus that operate this way. What is it about parking that you have a problem with?
@Kyle: Well, first, city buses are an expense of time, not of money, so it’s not fair to put non-bus commuters in the “can’t afford $125″ box. The difference between live-with-mom and East Side rent is a LOT more than $125 a year, and if I had 3 hours a day to burn, I could ride the bus too. But I know that’s not your point.
I believe that physical access to a campus is just as important as financial access, regardless of where you live (especially when the maniacs charge you an extra $80/credit for online classes). So parking is one area where I’m okay spending a little to grow the campus. Do I think it needs to be 100% subsidized and “free?” Not necessarily, but an hourly/daily fee is — plainly — a stupid solution, and that’s the only other alternative that UWM is interested in.
The merits of the OSL reorganization are a completely different discussion.
Dan –
I agree. Of all things that should be supported, it’s access to campus.
It just sounded as though you were saying that paying market rate for parking, due to the increased cost, would cause you to go elsewhere for your education. Using the reasoning, increased cost overall not necessarily related to parking would also cause you, or others, to consider the same decision. But some people don’t get that. I mean, after all, they use the rationale that “it’s just a few more dollars per semester,” while at the same time crusading that less then a dollar an hour to park is a back-breaking burden. It just seems like an ironic double standard to me. Sure, parking racks up pretty quick, but if you park smart, it’s not all that much more then the $125/semester tuition increase that Alex Kostal and Travis Romero-Boeck forced on everyone else for things a lot less meritorious then parking and access.
I’m not criticizing a subsidized parking rate at all. I am saying, of all the stupid things that the seg. fee funds, lower parking rates for students is among the least stupid.
Dave, Daniel, + the almighty Kyle – you guys need lives.
With decreasing tax revenues and forced cutbacks in municipal budgets I don’t think spending money on high cost parking decks is the best use of tax dollars today.
I was under the impression that it was the parking/transit department that wanted to no longer fund the bus service any more that was the cause of the closures, not the County. The money saved would be used to offset the debt from the construction and maint. of the new parking structures on campus.
“For the 2011-2012 fiscal year, the university has opted to not renew the lease with Milwaukee County at the lakefront lots. Claude Schuttey, the Director of UWM Parking and Transportation, explained that this was a decision made for the benefit of students.”
“County Parks Director Sue Black, who has worked closely with the university on this lease, said that although the county had not yet received formal notification of the lease ending, they knew that was the plan. She also said, contrary to what UWM Parking and Transportation reported, the county of Milwaukee would have no problem renewing the lease for the lakefront lots, and described her relationship with university administration as friendly.”
Source: http://bit.ly/hQZY7B (12/6/10)
UGrad, that was the initial story. But shortly thereafter that was completely contradicted. Check out http://bit.ly/dPFGKE (12/13/10). It is in fact the County that is blocking the parking renewal. Students pay a fee that specifically funds UPARK. It’s not discretionary funding for the Parking and Transit office.