Toronto mayor David Miller asks students to 'see the opportunities' on Wednesday. Miller was one of several panellists asking students to pass a new levy to build the sports complex for the Pan American Games.
Toronto and UTSC leaders took questions from students on the Pan American sports facility levy on Wednesday, March 3, at a town hall organized by the Scarborough Campus Students’ Union. This levy would account for students’ contribution to the athletics facility that could host the 2015 Pan Am games. The referendum runs from March 17-19 in the UTSC Student Centre.
The panel taking students’ questions consisted of Toronto mayor David Miller, UTSC principal Franco Vaccarino, Malvern community coordinator Alex Dow, 2004 Olympic medallist Liz Warden, SCSU acting president Amir Bashir, and John Kapageridis, president of UTSC’s Athletics Association.
Panellists urged students to vote yes to the proposed levy. “It [presents] a truly transformative moment for UTSC,” said Vaccarino.
“I am not against the Pan Am games in Toronto. I’m just against students paying for it. They should find another way to fund [the construction],” said a fourth-year life science student.
Vaccarino said that a reduced levy is not an option for UTSC. “We looked at various financial models [and] with the parameters we had, this is the model that we got.”
Miller agreed. “U of T’s funding is contingent on the levy,” he said. “It cannot shrink.”
Students campaigning against the levy argue that the athletics complex will go ahead despite a No vote. Members of “Vote No to a Legacy of Debt” referred to Varsity Stadium at St. George campus, which faced a similar referendum in 2002. Students voted no to a proposed $70 fee. The stadium was still constructed and students currently pay a levy of $18.
“A No vote means that students do not want to support the complex,” said Vacarrino. Richard McKergow, a member of the “Vote No” campaign who works with the Association of Part-time Undergraduate Students, noted that the wording on the referendum does not ask students whether they want the complex but whether they’re willing to pay the levy.
Joeita Gupta, spokesperson for the group No Games Toronto, asked why the costs should be placed on the students. Gupta is also VP external of APUS and sits on U of T’s Governing Council.
Vacarrino replied that his “commitment and ability to support this [complex] comes directly from students,” and that in his view, students want the complex. He did not give any direct reply as to why students are taking on the costs.
First-year student David Khachikyan said he was glad for better facilities. “I would vote yes because there is not even a swimming pool here. It sucks. Why should I have to go downtown and not [have access] here?” His response to the levy: “It’s not a lot of money.”
Asked what he had to say to students currently struggling to pay their tuition, Miller mentioned the summer jobs he took on to get through school. “I understand the challenges. I ask you to see the opportunities,” said Miller. He referred to his own experience as a student who had to “pave roads” and “clean the rich kids’ toilets” in the summer to get through college. “I’m not going to tell you how to afford it. That’s your choice.”
Several students mentioned that the panel consisted solely of those supporting the levy. Bashir commented that he had not been approached by any member of the opposing side wanting to hold a similar forum.
No Games Toronto will be holding an open forum, said Gupta and Oriel Varga, the executive director of APUS. They declined to mention who would be speaking at the forum. Gupta said she does not think SCSU will give their group space.
The bottom line
• If passed, the levy would amount to $40 per semester for full-time students and $8 for part-timers. This fee will increase by four per cent each year until 2014, when the facilities are scheduled to open. Fees will then go up to $140 per semester for full-time students and $28 for part-time students.
• The proposal has students contributing $30 million over a 25-year period, which is 80 per cent of UTSC’s share of the bill. The Pan Am venue will be located along Military Trail and Morningside Avenue as part of an expansion project that runs to $750 million.
• The new sports complex will include fitness and training facilities, two 50-metre competition pools, and a multi-sport field house. A Scarborough-Malvern Light Rail Transit system is also included in the package.
• UTSC’s Athletics Association website states that the money students contribute through the levy up until their graduation will be credited toward an alumni membership at the complex. Alumni memberships currently cost $365 per year.
• International students planning to leave Canada after graduation will not have access to these facilities. UTSC principal Franco Vaccarino said these students will still benefit from the complex because when asked by employers about the university, the mention of UTSC will evoke images of a prestigious institution whose world class athletics complex hosted the Pan Am games. The referendum runs from March 17-19 in the UTSC Student Centre.
Comments
There seems to be some sort of erroneous perception among many students that things which are rolled into compulsory ancillary fees (like AC or Hart House) are "free". Maybe they are free if your parents pay your fees.
No one is debating whether it would be nice to have high-quality athletic facilities on campus - that one is a no-brainer. Rather, the question that UTSC students should ask themselves is whether they feel comfortable imposing their view on generations of students who will NOT have a choice. The only reason that the full levy (after the complex opens) is so low relative to private facilities is that the silent majority of students who do not use it willing be subsidizing services for a minority. I bet the few students who are enthusiastic about having more athletic facilities on campus wouldn't be so happy if they had to pay the cost of making those services available to ALL students, rather than being able to work out on someone else's dime.
This sort of scheme is acceptable for essential services where the alternative is catastrophic, but I cannot support a $280/yr mandatory levy for a service as non-essential as a gym. I'm confident that this university will not spontaneously implode if students don't have access to a swimming pool.
My annual incidental and ancillary fees are 22.5% of my tuition fees, or almost $2000/yr. That's not money you find behind the couch, and ancillary fee creep is even worse than tuition increases since we are actually doing this to ourselves. A lot of that money goes to making sure I have access to two (2) athletic facilities and a raft of other (mostly useless) services. I think I speak for a lot of students when I say that I'd rather have the money instead.
The mistake here is not having students fund an athletic facility - if they want one, they should pay for it - it's thinking that a university is somehow incomplete unless it has an impressive athletic complex.
Mar 8, 2010 at 10:15 PM
"UTSC principal Franco Vaccarino said these students will still benefit from the complex because when asked by employers about the university, the mention of UTSC will evoke images of a prestigious institution whose world class athletics complex hosted the Pan Am games."
Well, that's convincing.
UTSC, you say? Why, I hear they have a nice gymnasium! If you attended an institution that had a fine gym, then you're good enough for me! You're hired!
Mar 9, 2010 at 06:10 PM
If the result of the referendum is "No, students vote not to pay for the facilities," what are the consequences?
Mar 10, 2010 at 05:51 PM
it's cool, we'll know soon enough. i asked the official-serious-student-leader-president of SCAA, he's pretty on top of all of this so he should have the answer sometime within 48 hours.
Mar 11, 2010 at 04:50 AM
If students vote "No" on the referendum, the athletics facility will NOT be built anyways a UTSC as that campaign is suggesting... There is no contract between the organizing committee and UTSC in place already that says that this will actually be built.
As part of the PanAm bid, both Markham and Hamilton lobbied hard and offered tons of cash to bring these facilities to their communities (still a bargain considering that a significant portion is still funded by the organizers). The only reason Scarborough got it is because the community really NEEDS it.
If the UTSC students vote No, the facility will just be built elsewhere (probably Markham).
There is a really good saying that goes :"There is no such thing as a free lunch." Even the dome at the downtown campus that was built with the reduced levy saw the effects of reduced student funding through chunks of time that are blocked off and unavailable to students because they are reserved for gold putters who pay to use the facility.
Luckily, the downtown campus has a long list of established supporters who were fortunately willing to fork over the extra cash. UTSC has no such supporters. The situations are not comparable.
The international students should really be against the referendum as they would literally be paying and getting nothing in return. Everyone else is getting at least some benefit and should think about leaving a legacy on the campus for future students to enjoy, just as they are enjoying the benefits of the Student Centre, Arts Building etc. that previous generations paid for but did not use.
Do you honestly think that the organizers just have an extra $30M sitting in the bank and, even if they do, that this is what they would spend it on??? This is just common sense, and the answer is clearly no when Markham will have it for $30M less than Scarborough.
Mar 19, 2010 at 12:34 AM
First of all, I am a graduate of UofT's School of Physical and Health Education and UofT's College Of Education. Secondly, I was a hired consultant (athletic facilities consultant) to the Ontario Government with respect to the funding of UofT's Field House at the St. George Campus. Last of all, I am the former Athletic Director at Humber College. In short: VOTE THE POOL DOWN! Here's why.
When it comes to keeping fit/healthy; a swimming pool provides one of the worst environments one can choose. Why? Research shows the more one swims in a pool - the greater the likelihood of developing cancer!Here's a starter on trihalomethanes. If you drink bottled water - you will definitely will refuse to swim in a pool! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trihalomethane)
Research also shows that 85% of the time spent in a pool by the average pool user is spent on the deck of the pool - socializing. A pub would provide the latter effect at 1% of the cost of a competition pool!!
Despite, the drastic health risk mentioned above; if one were really wanting to still swim for fitness reasons (but would you be healthy?)- all that is need is a Lap Pool! Which is a 5' to 6' deep pool only 12' wide (two lanes) and a 100 or more feet long. The cost is 2% of the cost of the pool Miller and the Toronto Elite are trying to suck out of you and all future students!
Even worse you students would contribute to the destruction of Public Open Space across all of Toronto. Why? Miller and the Elite are spending tax money that is badly needed - for Public Open Space infrastructure across all of Toronto - which would benefit 98% of all Torontonians (instead of only the 200 Rich Elite).
For example, Toronto is short 1600 miles of safe bicycling lanes! The world's foremost expert on Public Open Space (and biking)Jan Gehl, recently gave a seminar to a standing room only crowd of 500 people (at 2pm on a wed. afternoon!) at the Design Exchange in Toronto.
At the Exchange, Gehl stated that riding a bicycle on Toronto's streets is an EXTREME SPORT; because, there is not one safe bike on Toronto's roads! You can watch Gehl's full presentation in 3 videos: http://www.whatpriceisgoodinformation.com/Jan_Gehl_Part_1.mp4 http://www.whatpriceisgoodinformation.com/Jan_Gehl_Part_2.mp4 http://www.whatpriceisgoodinformation.com/Jan_Gehl_Part_3.mp4
Not only does Toronto lack safe biking lanes; it lacks safe pedestrian systems right across Toronto. Watch a video which demonstrates the above - that "Toronto is treating Torontonians like sheep going to be sheared": http://www.whatpriceisgoodinformation.com/sheep/torshp-iPhone.m4v
If one wants to be fit, to be healthy - the best way, is to walk 10,000 steps per day! There is no better, safer way to become healthy/fit and/or to stay healthy fit. If we only had a safe pedestrian system.
Make Miller and Toronto's Rich Elite do the right thing. Don't not support the Rich, the Elite VOTE NO; instead support fitness/health for 98% of Torontonians.
Mar 19, 2010 at 11:16 AM
Post a Comment