Rec. & “Wellness” Center Fact Sheet
Have you heard about the proposed on-campus Recreation and Wellness Center our student government wants to build here at San Francisco State University?1
Did you know that it would cost students $93 million to build?
Did you know that Associated Students, Inc. (ASI) AND the Cesar Chavez Student Center Governing Board (SCGB), two student-run organizations, are closely involved in making this happen? They’re not alone—Campus Recreation—a program under Student Affairs is also pushing this project along. 2
Know the Facts:
· Student fees fund both the ASI and the SCGB. That’s right; $42 of each student’s per-semester student fees goes toward the ASI, and $82 toward the SCGB.
· Each enrolled student is an automatic member, and therefore, integral part of holding our student government accountable to representing the students.
· ASI proposed the $93 million Rec. Center and used $300,000 in our student money to assess the “feasibility” of the project WITHOUT informing students.3
· Brailsford and Dunlavey, a private architecture firm, was contracted by the ASI to assess the feasibility of building this project by planning and implementing what is needed to win student approval. They have successfully gentrified over 300 campuses across the nation including most CSU’s.4
· The proposed Rec. Center will likely not open until 2014 and most current students financing this project, if built, will not have access to the Rec. Center. As part of the Master Plan, a long-term redevelopment plan of campus, this project will have an impact on struggling students.5
· Fees have already increased $489 since spring semester ’09. Fees will continue to increase. If approved, the Rec. center will add another $160 dollar increase on top of all other fees within the next six years with an additional and annual incremental increase of $3 per semester.
The Student Fee Advisory Committee, a group in charge of reviewing proposed changes and recommendations to President Corrigan, scrapped a democratic vote in favor of a potentially biased petition requiring minimal approval from students on campus.6
Now that you know this, don’t you think…
We should be able to fairly decide through a vote whether we want to fund this Rec. Center?
ASI should be held accountable to the diverse perspectives of students on our campus regarding this issue by investing in programs relevant to current needs of students?
SFSU should be spending this $93 million to provide us with classes instead of a Rec. Center. Students should not be taxed without their voices being heard and as a campus we can invest in alternative projects such as sustainable initiatives, resource centers, art programs, organic food co-ops, etc? Another school is possible.
· E-mail campus officials including ASI, SCGB, SFAC, and Campus Recreation (e-mails available on website).
· Distribute Petition saying we don’t want a $ 93 million Rec. Center.
· Participate in public comment during meetings, check website for updates!
Let your voice be heard!
Show that you are tired of having fee increases forced upon you!
This is as much about accountability to students as it is about the Rec. Center…
[1] http://www.studentrecreationandwellness.com/FAQ/
[2] http://www.studentrecreationandwellness.com/about_us/
[3] ASI minutes for November 5, 2008.
[4] http://www.facilityplanners.com/ht/d/OrgDir/xcids/397/pid/356
[5] http://www.sfsumasterplan.org/index.html[6] SFAC minutes for August 26th, 2009.
