The Daily Forty-Niner has consistently touted the need to invest in every aspect of education that benefits all students. Our editorial approach to the pending Beach Legacy Referendum doesn’t change our utilitarian philosophy. The consensual determination of our editorial board is to reject the proposal as untimely and lacking in pragmatism.
We truly had to wrestle with our collective conscience over whether to endorse or reject the BLR. The newsroom was almost evenly divided over the pros and cons of the referendum.
If you haven’t read or heard yet, the BLR is a campus-wide ballot request to increase student fees by $95 per regular semester, more than tripling current fees, adding another $70 for summer students beginning in fall 2010.
Students taking classes year round would pay $260 per year for the BLR. The BLR fee would piggyback with the $110 per semester fee for the Student Recreation and Wellness Center now under construction.
The referendum asks students for a projected increase of $5.3 million per year in student fees beginning in the 2010-2011 academic year. Voting will be made available online tomorrow and Thursday, with sample ballots and what to watch for having been sent to students last week.
The BLR is intended to build, improve and maintain athletic facilities at Cal State Long Beach, as well as increasing athletic scholarships by an estimated $1.1 million per year. Part of the funding will be used to bring CSULB into federal Title IX compliance by adding a women’s rowing team.
In reality, the BLR is the realization of a prediction made two years ago by Dan Bridges, the president of the California Collegiate Athletic Association, to the California State University board of trustees.
In 2007, the University of California, San Diego was considering a referendum to raise fees to $95 per semester, more than tripling student fees, exactly the same scenario set up by the BLR.
In his assessment to the San Diego Union-Tribune, Bridges said, “I think virtually every institution in the system is looking toward a referendum or investigating it … It’s a snowball effect. Once one institution passes a referendum, it receives a big influx of money and the others have to either get greater support from the institution or ask students for more fees.” Does it sound familiar?
The BLR is not a static fee. Inflationary adjustments will be made according to the Southern California Consumer Price Index in three years, also after most current students have graduated. Southern California’s inflation rose 3.5 percent in 2008. It will also be adjusted every three years after.
Inflation is tallied by food prices, rent, healthcare, education, clothing and other economic factors. We’ve only had one minor deflationary cycle in more than 50 years, which saw overall economic factors in California drop approximately 1 percent during the 1990s recession.
CSULB President F. King Alexander said, in support of the referendum, “There’s never a good time to increase a student fee with a bad economy.” As true as Alexander’s comment was, there certainly are extremely bad times to pass on higher fees and this is one such time. In fact, this is probably the absolute worst time to tap tomorrow’s college students for money that doesn’t exist in their educational budgets.
In an interview for Business Weekly about university endowments published on Monday, March 1 Alexander said, “Our students need that money. We’re not wealthy enough to sock it away when we have so many needs on our campus right now.” The same can be said about the money being requested for the BLR.
Inside Higher Ed predicts the CSU system will face cuts exceeding $165 million through the next two academic cycles. For the second year in a row, the CSU will forego any new growth money promised from the Higher Education Compact of 2004.
CSU students could continue seeing 10 percent tuition increases through 2012 and beyond beginning this fall. These compounded predictions would lock out an estimated 2,000 new students this fall alone at CSULB. The cuts also translate into fewer instructional hours, professors and employees being laid off, and overcrowded classrooms.
Locally, the city of Long Beach announced overall unemployment has hit nearly 12 percent, and statewide it’s fluctuating around 8 percent, with 1.9 million Californians currently jobless. As local employers are tightening their belts, students will begin feeling the crunch of fewer available part- and full-time jobs.
New high school students and community college transfers are facing higher admissions criteria and are either being warehoused in community colleges, or dropping out altogether because of financially-induced shrinking educational opportunities.
These indicators erase the cliché philosophy of “Build it and they will come” that the BLR promises.
This type of investment must not come at the expense of depriving future generations of low-income, first-generation — mostly minority — college students from access to a public university. This will happen if the BLR passes and other financial hardships are imposed as a result of our flailing economy.
There is no doubt CSULB would benefit from a new soccer stadium, improved athletics and aquatic facilities, as well as everything else on the BLR shopping list. The fields are sloppy and being able to offer more athletic scholarships would probably elevate CSULB to a higher level of competitive recognition.
Bringing CSULB into Title IX compliance is essential to protect other programs, but the proposed women’s rowing team can be handled at a mere fraction, estimated at $300,000 for equipment, of the overall cost of the BLR. The same can be argued for better maintenance of the grass soccer fields and investing in night lighting.
The athletics department recently boasted it had a record fundraising year, which should be focused on making some of those needed improvements and increasing student athlete scholarships.
Some questions and concerns posed to BLR promoters never got answered. For instance, the BLR is laced with references throughout about how the greater Long Beach community would benefit.
If the city would gain so much value from these projects, why wasn’t this first approached as a city bond measure? This type of investment could have been spread out so future students wouldn’t have to burden the entire bill.
Included in the BLR is the potential to return $1.6 million in Instructionally Related Activity money to various student programs. Certainly this could fund things like student organization projects — including more potential money to the Daily Forty-Niner as the BLR indicates — and study abroad programs, but IRA funding is discretionary.
In the end, answers to the BLR predicament become obvious; we need to behave responsibly for those who don’t currently have a voice in the process, which means we must recommend a no vote on the BLR.
The SFAC turned their heads on everything ethical on this one. No wonder that the committee is also the executive officers of the ASI. Nothing like double dipping. ASI leaders jumped on the committee to protect themselves from public scrutiny by the only rule involved in this comedy of errors: you may not comment to the media about the BLR. Of course they should have been able to speak out as a responsibility to their oath of office. Remember, Swetland, Chavez and Troutner were elected to ASI BEFORE they were placed on the SFAC. Great campus representation ASI. Robinson “advises” them as ASI and SFAC. Did you really expect ethics was going to be involved anywhere in this campaign? Take the money and run before you end up in Madoff’s shoes. There should be a legal investigation from top to bottom.
The vultures are circling over the student financial aid checks. Vote No
“CSULB Suckers” is going to look great on the new sweatshirts when this passes.
Honestly, I think that the BLR is going to pass. The supporters of the Beach Legacy are very organized and has gained enough support. I think that its a little too late for the people who are opposing the BLR. There’s a lot of people who are just now speaking up. I do believe that the SFAC or whoever’s in charge could have made this process a little more fair. BLR supporters went to many organization meetings with no one going against what they’re saying. I believe that many students were easily convinced that the BLR was a good idea. I hate it and I love it. I hate it because its not the right time to do this. Your argument may be “its never a good time for fee increases.” Well, its especially not a good time for free increases during a recession. Are you seriously telling students that the athletics department can go on this way for a couple more years? A lot of things for the BLR are enhancements. With the economy the way it is, the athletics could really find a way to raise revenue and pay off their expenses (if they really wanted to). I love the BLR because it is a great idea and the many things that it could do for the university could truly improve the finances, resources, and recruitment of the athletics department. My only issue is that now is just not the time to do this.
Anybody that thinks the BLR is unbiased and fair won’t care that the Student Fee Advisory Committee is made up of Doug Robinson and mostly executives in ASI. That keeps them under wraps so they can’t give out accurate information. It’s sad that they didn’t live up to their commitment and make sure this is fair and unbiased. F_ _ King Alexander and Doug “bootllick” Robinson made sure they twisted the right nipples on this one, eh? Get ready to pay, ya’lll.
IRA money is DISCRETIONARY. What that means is everybody who wants to apply for it must appear in front of a student IRA committee and beg for it. The IRA committee then picks it based on favoritism. It’s up to their discretion whether a group or program gets funding. Unfortunately, the committee changes every semester and there is no continuity or accountability. If you’re the favorite, you get the dough. If you’re not, then it sucks to be you. Most of the Greek organizations get everything they ask for (especially when a few Greeks are typically on the committee), while many vital programs get the crumbs or nothing at all. That’s how the game is played. It’s much like your high school ASB was, pet students get rewarded while all other schleps get tossed on their asses.
I think the most important word in this statement : “Included in the BLR is the potential to return $1.6 million in Instructionally Related Activity money to various student programs” Is the word “potential.”
Every statement I have read a statement from an official with respect to increases in “Instructionally Related Activit[ies],” the only say that the money COULD go to that. They point out certain programs that COULD have been fully funded already with that $1.6 million. But please take note that they don’t say that $1.6 million WILL go to these activities and programs. (Oh, and also make sure to take note of the fact that “instructionally” is not even a word (see: http://www.m-w.com))
I’m the REAL latination. those trolls imposterizing me are racists just like all BLR supporters.
This wouldn’t even be an issue if alumni were willing to put their money where their mouths are. They got out when it was a lot cheaper and now want somebody else to pay for their entertainment. It must suck to be you, CSULB.
Your name, why wasn’t this put out as a citywide bond measure like Bond Measure E for LBCC? In your own words “The university needs the students and community to support the school.” Why should only the students pay for this? Because city voters would say a resounding no, just like responsible students should do. Tired alumni should stop urging this if they aren’t willing to put up the community support/funds. The cost of living far exceeds when all of these alums attended. If it’s a fair it should be optional. Let sports fans pay for sports and let the rest of us pay for what we want.
My husband and I are alumni of Long Beach State. We have been involved with the school and athletic fans for 42 years. Athletics brings money to the school. Improved facilities bring more people and money. Community people spend money if the incentive is there. Better facilities would be a great incentive. The university needs the students and community to support the school. The university needs to continue to offer venues that bring in outside money. The BLR would benefit the whole school, not just athletics.
The class of 1963 paid about $50 for tuition and @ $4-$5 for textbooks AND they were all white students from mostly middle class families, Alix. Tuition was only $63 per semester when I attended in 1972. Things have changed. Vote NO on this.
As an alum (English, Class of 1963) and supporter of all things LB State, I encourage you to vote YES to the BLR. The things it will provide will be a positive influence on the University and you — not just now but for the future. It will help LB State gain more national recognition in many ways — and you will even more proud to be a LB State grad. In my day, we voted to help pay for the Student Union — and it was built after I graduated. You have to look to the future.
Letitgopeople, how is it that you don’t give the same advice about name calling to the “Vote Yes on BLR!” dude? Smells like a double standard. BLR dude, why don’t you go to Gonzaga then? Either you couldn’t afford it or couldn’t meet academic requirements. Why bless us with your presence? The big difference is that we are a public university and Gonzaga is private, i.e. more money to start with. It isn’t like they started a basketball team and built academics around it. They took years of raising private money through academics programs to afford a basketball team. That argument doesn’t promise that Gonzaga will be a perennial powerhouse either. My guess is they are a flash in the pan and will be relegated to obscurity in 2-3 years, tops.
Those are my opinions “letitgopeople” As you stated, I have a right to express mine. No to the BLR.
————————————————————————————————————————
That’s fine. Just don’t call people morons because they don’t agree with your stance.
Those are my opinions “letitgopeople” As you stated, I have a right to express mine. No to the BLR.
————————————————————————————————————————
That’s fine. Just don’t call people morons because they don’t agree with your stance.
Those are my opinions “letitgopeople” As you stated, I have a right to express mine. No to the BLR.
————————————————————————————————————————
That’s fine. Just don’t call people morons because they don’t agree with your stance.
If you dont want the BLR to pass cuz youre too much of a moron to not wana pay an extra 190 dollars to see the value of your education increase in the future then how are you even in college? The BLR is an investment that would add an extra couple of thousand or even more when CSULB athletics is well recognized nationally (as we should) and employers see that you graduated from here. Instead of thinking “who is this kid from CSULB?” they would think “oh CSULB, 1st place on the Big West above PAC 10 schools! they should be doing great there!” Take Gonzaga as an example no one knew who they were and now they are recognized nationally. Id love to be graduating from there!
After talking with a classmate about it, I will vote yes on the BLR. The wishful football ogres on this campus will not get their dreams fulfilled, because BLR will barely get us that Title IX compliance, not pave the financial way for a football game. Maybe they need to study up on how law works.
Besides, we don’t need a football team right now, we need to conserve our funds for other things that would increase our “legacy”. While sports may give meatheads and sports fanatics a few perks, we will get more money for clubs on-campus as well as the facilities we use.
All you idiots who vote no or argue otherwise and don’t care about sports go to San Marcos or Dominguez Hills. You are geek losers that would rather collect bugs and have no idea hoe sports increases the value of your degree.
Taco Nation, you are just a white guy playing the race card as if you we’re a minority. It goes to show how even white people know that playing the race card (used to work) not any more Taco Nation. Obama squashed that! Come up with something better loser! I will be back laughing my ass off when this passes. Even if it doesn’t FKA will IMPOSE IT, you moron. You are in a no win situation and you are too stupid to realize it.
Those are my opinions “letitgopeople” As you stated, I have a right to express mine. No to the BLR.
The “latination” posting to this is Jason Aula, a known internet troll hijacking my original tag name. I haven’t posted to anything in nearly a month.
csu wow and latination, if you really feel passionately against the blr, then why don’t you organize an anti-blr movement and get the word out around campus? if you’re going to come on a forum to dish out personal attacks, how does that help your cause? there are two sides of an issue and both sides have the right to voice their stances without having to be met with personal attacks.
cedale, you are a mean, mean racist for supporting the BLR. You just want to whitify this campus, you racist! i hate racists! anyone who supports the blr is racist! no need for arguing or using “facts” when dealing with racists. passing this blr will only prove how racist this racist campus really is!
“CSU WOW” … again, where are any facts and numbers? Obviously you are emotionally attached to this issue. You don’t support BLR, but why the need to attack someone who does?
Cedale, the data to back up my claim that you are a moron are your own irresponsible words supporting the BLR. You are undoubtedly one of the students who will not have to pay for it, but will come back to enjoy the benefits of the damage this will cause. Can anybody say “elitist?”
As someone who is paying his way without the help of financial aid or parents to lean on I simply cannot afford another fee increase. No matter how beneficial it would be to add an additional fee onto my bill on top of the fees associated with the Wellness center and parking structure makes it hard to pay other bills I have. The BLR should be voted down.
If you vote ‘Yes’ on the BLR, you are a racist. No arguments about it. Go ahead and whitify this campus by increaseing fees. Watch as this racist campus exposes itself for the racists that they are.
“CSU WOW” … show some class … you call me a moron, yet offer no data to back up your claim. Please offer something a little more tangible than name calling. Thanks.
I’m glad at least the 49er is showing enough courage to point out what a bad idea the BLR is right now. It’s easy to spend somebody else’s money, especially if you’re not going to be brave enough to stick around and tell them “We did this to you.” Thank you ‘niner.
Janine and Cedale are ignorant morons who know nothing about economics. The students won’t get financial aid increases because it will evaporate before they ever see it.
The Beach Legacy Referendum will help future generations. It is a wise investment.
“depriving future generations of low-income, first-generation — mostly minority — college students” … WRONG! 51.4% of our students receive financial aid. Students who truly cannot pay for college will receive increase aid dollars.
We also need a new baseball stadium. I hope that’s next.
Why not have a Textbook Legacy Referendum to benefit ALL students. How many athletes will benefit from the $5.3 million, 250-300 per year? But they want the other 36,000 to share $1.6 million. Don’t they teach economics at the Beach?
Mike, how much of this will you be paying? My estimate is nada. It’s easy to spend other people’s cash isn’t it? What wiggle room will this leave for future students to invest in projects they think are important? If this passes, another referendum won’t be considered for the next two decades. Is it really fair to lock them into debt and block them from making financial decisions of their own? Hardly. Vote no on this junk.
$5.3 million for women’s soccer, Ultimate Frisbee and a rowing team? Somebody seriously bumped their head. I think not today.
The money should be spent on bringing back football. Who gives a damn about women’s soccer and rugby? Give us a sport that will make money.
Remember that students before those today that went to LBSU paid dues for the student union and other buildings that everybody uses today. They did not get the chance to use them. Think instead of those who will come to LBSU in the future and not just for today. Students pay for things they may use or not. Dues are paid for the wellness center that I am sure not everybody uses. Think of the future and vote yes on the BLR.