Should the students of U of T pay for the new Varsity Centre? Jorge Sousa of the “No ” committee says absolutely not. Andrew Lefoley of the “Yes ” committee agreed. Unfortunately,the agreement ends there.

Asked why the new athletic centre is necessary, Lefoley says current facilities are overcrowded. Students have to wait to use equipment. Women ‘s only hours are not possible when there is such high demand for facilities.

Upon hearing that athletic facilities can become crowded, Jorge Sousa was absolutely stunned. I believe his exact words were, “Well, yeah!” After a quick laugh, he explained that there are peak hours when any athletic facility is crowded. That is not a reason to spend $55.1 million to build a new facility. Particularly when he knows from his own experience that there are times when the athletic centre is virtually empty.

Neither offered a solution to the occasional overcrowding. And I can ‘t help but wonder.Why are memberships available to nonstudents —students from other educational institutions, students ‘ partners and members of the community —if the students of UofT aren ‘t being adequately served?

They are contributing to the supposed overcrowding of current facilities.Will they pay the levy?

Next concern on the list: location, location, location. The new Varsity Centre is to be built in place of Varsity Stadium. But the U of T website boasts the stadium is a historic site,one of the best natural grass fields in Canada. Lefoley ‘s input? It is already condemned. (Good to see U of T keeps its website up to date.)

Not much Jorge could say about that one.

And what about timing?The Varsity Centre will not simply appear if students pay for it. It must be built. Building takes time. Therefore, many students paying for it will never get to use it. Is that fair?

Lefoley believes it is reasonable, if not fair. “We walk in buildings every day that students before us paid to build. It is time to give something back.”

Sousa ‘s response: “No.” When asked why? An immediate reference to his article published in the Varsity. Students should not pay for bricks and mortar. The sentiment seems to be, if students in the past got ripped off, that ‘s a shame. At least they were not facing huge tuition hikes and other escalated student fees at the same time.

Lefoley ‘s final thoughts? That students should not have to pay for the Varsity Centre, but they must. The government refuses to step up, and funding is not falling from the skies. Perhaps students paying for the centre will show the government the necessity of increased funding.

Sousa believes that argument is “whitewash.” He does not feel that spending $55.1 million dollars, more than half put up by students, is the best protest against cut spending.

He thinks that alerting the government by doing the government ‘s job is a bad idea. And he has met with plenty of support from student groups such as the Association of Part-time Undergraduate Students (APUS) and the Arts and Science Students ‘ Union (ASSU).

Obviously,this debate is a difficult one. The basic facts are too subjective. How crowded is overcrowded? What is student obligation? That depends.

So my concern is this: in three years, when the levy has reached $70 per year and tuition fees are through the roof, will there still be demand for athletic facilities?

Students may not have the energy to work out when they need three
jobs to put themselves through school.