2014 Referendum

Chavways

Haven't seen anything up here about this yet so just said I'd throw up the information.

There will be a referendum in UL this week to vote on the following:

To introduce an Annual Student Levy of €67 to contribute to the development of:
1) an Arena extension including Climbing Wall
2) the cost of a needs analysis and design of a new Student Centre and
3) the upgrade of Maguire's pitches, the building of Handball Alleys and a hurling wall.

Voting will be open from 8am on Thursday March 27th until Noon on Friday March 28th.

GET INFORMED ABOUT THE REFERENDUM!!

All the information you need is here:

http://www.ulwolves.ie/referendum2014/

Every UL student has a vote so make sure you use it!

#ULREF #GetInformed



It'll be interesting to see how people vote this time around.

Russellynx

more money? no thanks

Polar Ice

Is there wording to include the term of loan repayment?

Jester252

Was the new student centre removed from the referendum due to the american money drying up?

Ave Sodalis

Jester252 wrote: »

Was the new student centre removed from the referendum due to the american money drying up?

Maybe I'm reading your post wrong but the new student centre is still there?
Well, it's better than the last one proposed I suppose, assuming the levy is fixed this time.

Ginge Young

sup_dude wrote: »

Maybe I'm reading your post wrong but the new student centre is still there?
Well, it's better than the last one proposed I suppose, assuming the levy is fixed this time.

The Levy is fixed. The student centre is still there - however this referendum is proposing a proper needs analysis and design of the student centre. Once this consultation is complete and design proposed then another referendum will need to be held to determine whether people want it or not.

I'm quite excited, considering the figure is less than what the old levy used to be.

The FAQ and information in general on the link provided by Chavways is a major step up from last year.

Jester252

Ginge Young wrote: »

The Levy is fixed. The student centre is still there - however this referendum is proposing a proper needs analysis and design of the student centre. Once this consultation is complete and design proposed then another referendum will need to be held to determine whether people want it or not.

I'm quite excited, considering the figure is less than what the old levy used to be.

The FAQ and information in general on the link provided by Chavways is a major step up from last year.

Correct me if I'm wrong but last year the levy was to fund the building of a new student centre. This year it's to fund the needs analysis and design of a new Student Centre.

Ginge Young

Below is taken directly from the FAQ, but essentially yes you are correct (the Arena extension and development of Maguires Field were also included last year and still are this year, however the Arena extension has changed due to Munster now taking control of part of what last years extension would have been).

"Why change from Student Centre to Design Team?

During the debate for the referendum in November 2012 there was a lot of ambiguity in relation to the Student Centre. The conceptualised drawings were taken as the final approved plan and this contributed to all sorts of confusion on cinema's and nightclubs which were incorrect. ULSU and UL have learned from this as the last student survey on student needs was back in 2009 and obviously the current Student Body has different needs as well. The proposal in this referendum is to start the process from scratch by analysing current student requirements and preferences. It is only after input from the students that a design and location would be looked at."

Hope that helps.

Chimaera

Jester252 wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but last year the levy was to fund the building of a new student centre. This year it's to fund the needs analysis and design of a new Student Centre.

Not quite.

---

Last year, the levy was to raise funding for three capital projects:

1. Arena Extension
2. Maguire's Pitches Upgrade
3. Student Centre

At that point, the design proposed for the student centre was mostly conceptual. The feedback on the result suggested that there was a lot of confusion about the student centre and what it would entail.

The funding raised from the levy was to be matched by an equal contribution from North Atlantic Philanthropies.

Here's where I devolve a little into guesswork (waiting on firmer figures at the moment).

The total cost of these three projects was €40 million, so the union was to contribute €20 million and NAP the other €20 million. AFAIK, the Student Centre was in excess of half of this total amount.

The levy at this time was to be a continuation of the €72 being charged to fund the Boathouse as that loan was due to be paid off (and has now been).

---

In the interim, NAP have moved onto other projects, so we're funding this on our own.

The Boathouse levy has expired (no levy was charged this academic year).

Based on feedback, the SU took a decision to revisit the idea of a Student Centre completely, rather than do a "Lisbon 2" and submit the same proposal to another referendum.

---

The current proposal which will be voted on this week is to fund the following capital projects:

1. Arena Extension
2. Maguire's Pitches Upgrade

It will also fund the following project:

3. A feasibility study into a new student centre

This latter project is going to carry out a needs assessment among the campus community to establish if there is a need/desire for a new student centre, and if so what facilities it should offer/contain.

At this point it is not clear to me if there are any external funding sources for any of these projects.

Due to the removal of the student centre capital project the new funding requirement is €16 million rather than €20 million hence the lower levy in this proposal.

If the consultation on the student centre results in a demand for a new facility, this will be proposed as a separate referendum at that time.

---

What does it mean if a Yes vote is secured on Friday?

A new student levy of €67 will be payable from AY 2014/15 until the loan funding for the projects is paid off. The levy will cease as soon as the loan is paid off, irrespective of any timelines included in the wording. The Boathouse loan ended up being paid off early and it is certainly possible that this would happen in this case too.

If a subsequent referendum agrees to fund the construction of a student centre, this will most likely result in an amendment to the levy set up from this one. In the case of the Boathouse, the proposal was to continue a levy which was in place to fund the construction of the current Student Centre and the Arena, a levy which had been due to expire around that time.

Jester252

With the NAP money gone does this mean that the funding for the project is 100% from the lavy? This referendum is going to be tight.

Ginge Young

Jester252 wrote: »

With the NAP money gone does this mean that the funding for the project is 100% from the lavy? This referendum is going to be tight.

Hey Jester, do you mean with reference to just the student centre should it go ahead down the line, or the current projects proposed?

If it's the current projects in this referendum the money will come from the European Investment Bank money which UL announced recently. A part of the money will be used to fund the projects, of which a portion will be repaid by the levy. The exact break down I am not sure of but it is not being funded 100% by the students.

From FAQ: What does EIB (European Investment Bank) announcement mean for referendum proposal?

The funding for the project is based on a long term loan. The Levy will be used to repay this loan over a period of 20 years. UL have secured a long term loan facility from the EIB, part of which will be used to fund this project, of which a portion of will be repaid by the levy. EIB loan funding represents the best value loan finance available in Ireland. The financial benefit of these favourable terms is passed onto the students through a lower levy.

Edit: I just got the figures. 66% of the overall costs of these projects will be covered by the Levy.

Jester252

I was just wonder because last year they made a big deal at it being the last time we could use the NAP funds for the project. I didn't know that the EIB funding also cover these projects. Thanks.

Gael23

Im on the NO side for the same reason as last time. Come back with it in a few years time but not now. The reality is in most cases its students parents who will foot the bill and at the moment everyone has enough things they HAVE to pay.

Chimaera

ryanf1 wrote: »

Im on the NO side for the same reason as last time. Come back with it in a few years time but not now. The reality is in most cases its students parents who will foot the bill and at the moment everyone has enough things they HAVE to pay.

When the vote was held to build the Arena and the current student centre, the economy wasn't exactly booming either, and tuition fees were only recently abolished. Where would we be now if the students at that time had voted no for this reason?

Reiver

Looks like a great project, finally something thats being done for students. And there's no guarantee any of that money will be available in a few years time.

I'll be a YES vote. I mean 67e isn't that much at the end of the day considering what we'll get. Stay in a couple of nights over the year and study rather than going out. Or have a cup of coffee less a week in Red Raisins or Scholars. This is something that will help benefit the student body as a whole.

@Chimaera, I agree. Lets try and put something in place for future students, something they'll benefit from.

freyners

Voting Yes for a number of reasons, mostly set out below in response to this

ryanf1 wrote:

Im on the NO side for the same reason as last time. Come back with it in a few years time but not now. The reality is in most cases its students parents who will foot the bill and at the moment everyone has enough things they HAVE to pay.

Sorry but I dont buy into this argument at all.

Simply put, when should it be done in the future, because if we put this off a two things will happen

The money from the EIB will be gone, leaving the funding for the other 1/3 of the project in huge amounts of doubt. Even if we do secure the funding, we have to pay higher commercial rates for the loans. Costs go up, cost to students go up.

Secondly the costs of the project will go up in the future. The economy is starting to grow again, inflation will follow. This drives up the costs of the project, leaving the students to pay more.

This is a far better time than in a few years. Who knows if we will get a chance to do it again. The funding is there and the price is right. Any delays will probably end up costing students more in the long run

Before anyone points out, yes I'm a rugby club member so I do have a vested interest in this, that doesn't mean I'm going to abandon all sense since I will be gone before the improvements are put in place. This is a good project for a lot of future students. I paid a boathouse levy

Chavways

I'll also be a Yes for this. I think the new facilities will be a fantastic resource to all of the clubs and even the general public that will benefit from them in the future. 67 euro a year isn't that much for what's being proposed.

I think once most people see the information being put in front of them and what's being proposed, the Yes should pass. Lack of information was definitely a problem before the last referendum but it'll definitely be much much more visible this time around.

wnolan1992

I'll be a Yes vote too, having been a No voter last time.

I get that it is a week's rent going on something that you may never use (I for one will never use either project, nor have I used the Boathouse), but at the end of the day I reckon the benefits outweigh the cost on this one.

I said it at the time of the last one that they should have split the projects like this, so I'm happy that it's being done this way.

Ave Sodalis

I think this referendum will go through a lot easier than the last. More people seem happier with the terms this time.

Reiver wrote: »

Stay in a couple of nights over the year and study rather than going out. Or have a cup of coffee less a week in Red Raisins or Scholars.

Ugh, I'm sorry but I hate this... Although I see what you are saying, telling people how to spend their money is quite irritating.
I think my biggest problem with this is how the YES side are going a bit ott with their campaigning. Between "vote yes" and those no makeup selfie things, there's more spam on my fb page and the group pages than in my student emails

Reiver

sup_dude wrote: »

Ugh, I'm sorry but I hate this... Although I see what you are saying, telling people how to spend their money is quite irritating.

Sorry if it came across that way. Just tend to get wound up when people act like its on a scale with war reparations. I paid a Boathouse levy and we got a top-notch facility there. The whole "Won't pay anymore money" argument can get a bit weary.

Mahatma Geansai

Is there any breakdown as to how the money will be spent?

UL has a current student population of ~13,000 and this number is only likely to rise during the 20 years the levy will be in effect. With that in mind, we're looking at a fund of ~€20million. Does that sound like an excessive amount for what is being proposed?

Jester252

Reiver wrote: »

Sorry if it came across that way. Just tend to get wound up when people act like its on a scale with war reparations. I paid a Boathouse levy and we got a top-notch facility there. The whole "Won't pay anymore money" argument can get a bit weary.

It's an acceptable complaint. Especially when the SU is looking for students to pay for something that will only benefit a minority of the students.

Ginge Young

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

Is there any breakdown as to how the money will be spent?

UL has a current student population of ~13,000 and this number is only likely to rise during the 20 years the levy will be in effect. With that in mind, we're looking at a fund of ~20million. Does that sound like an excessive amount for what is being proposed?

Hi Mahatma,

The total cost of the projects altogether is an estimated €16 Million. This is on the upper end of estimates and it is quite likely that it will come in cheaper once it goes out to tender pending approval of the referendum. They go for the upper estimate rather than not budget for enough.

The 20 year loan facility is automatically what UL are getting from EIB. It does not necessarily mean we will be paying for 20 years ourselves. The payments will stop as soon as it is fully paid which could come in under that, especially if student numbers rise.

Hope that clarifies it for you? If not come back to me!

Cael Rowley

Why are all these levy's for the benefit of the sporty students, it's the equivalent of using the levy to give everyone on a csis course their own laptop, that would never get a vote. A proper use of the levy would be to increase the size of the library which is something that would benefit everyone and that everyone wants.

Chavways

Cael Rowley wrote: »

Why are all these levy's for the benefit of the sporty students, it's the equivalent of using the levy to give everyone on a csis course their own laptop, that would never get a vote. A proper use of the levy would be to increase the size of the library which is something that would benefit everyone and that everyone wants.

The University will not allow students to pay for academic facilities. There are plans established for a library extension but the University hasn't been granted funding yet for these to go ahead.

Cael Rowley

Chavways wrote: »

The University will not allow students to pay for academic facilities. There are plans established for a library extension but the University hasn't been granted funding yet for these to go ahead.

Why are we not allowed to fund academic facilities? this is supposed to be a democratic decision and we the students voted no last year because the majority of us have no use for the arena or a new pitch. If this referendum fails the vote again will it be up again next year? This is supposed to be a democratic vote and calling the vote again every time it fails is a farce. Also a laptop is not an academic facility why wont you hold a referendum to give every student in a computer science course a free laptop to do their work on? People pursuing sports based courses always seem get given more than those pursuing academic courses. This is ridiculous, instead of charging everyone for these facilities hold a vote to charge those only who would use them or have the charge upgrade something that would be beneficial for all.

Chimaera

Why are we not allowed to fund academic facilities?

The provision of academic facilities is the university's purview and they appear to be unwilling to allow the Students' Union to fundraise towards provision of such facilities. My guess here is it puts the University too much in thrall to the SU.

The library was due to be extended 3 years ago until the government pulled funding from all higher education capital projects that had not been commenced at that time. The plan is still in place awaiting funding.

this is supposed to be a democratic decision and we the students voted no last year because the majority of us have no use for the arena or a new pitch. If this referendum fails the vote again will it be up again next year? This is supposed to be a democratic vote and calling the vote again every time it fails is a farce.

A majority of students (61 %) did in fact support the referendum last year, but the referendum failed to reach the qualified majority (66 %) required by the SU constitution in order to pass.

After this vote, the Students' Union sought feedback from students on why they voted no (or yes) and found that the main stumbling block was the proposal for a new Student Centre, with a general lack of information also being cited as a reason.

There is unlikely to be another vote if this one fails.

If it fails, Maguire's pitches will remain as they are meaning our field clubs suffer, either in performance by not being able to train during winter, or financially by paying for training facilities elsewhere.

If it fails, the Outdoor Pursuits Club does not regain its main training facility, the climbing wall.

If it fails, the Sub-Aqua Club will not have access to a diving facility in the area.

If it fails, the 35 societies who have supported two referenda for improved facilities for clubs get nothing in return. These societies are operating with limited facilities in a lot of cases, many of them having little or no access to storage space, having limited access to rooms in the University to hold events and meetings. These societies are betting on the Student Centre to come through for them so they can grow and improve.

Also a laptop is not an academic facility why wont you hold a referendum to give every student in a computer science course a free laptop to do their work on? People pursuing sports based courses always seem get given more than those pursuing academic courses.

This has nothing to do with any courses, sport-based or otherwise. In fact, academic courses get far more in investment than the sports ones are ever going to get.

The SU, through C&S, supports sports and recreation facilities and activities for students. The university supports academic achievement.

If you think everyone in CSIS should get a laptop from the SU, why not raise it with your class rep and ask them to bring it to the Student Council? This is how C&S have brought this referendum forward. Members of the clubs and societies have brought their issues to their committees who have then brought it to the C&S Council. The proposal gains support (or doesn't there) and can mandate the union to hold a referendum.

This is ridiculous, instead of charging everyone for these facilities hold a vote to charge those only who would use them or have the charge upgrade something that would be beneficial for all.

I suppose you've never set foot inside the Student Centre or the Arena in your time here as a student? Those facilities only exist because students in 1995 voted yes to a levy to help towards the construction of them. This was a time when people still had to pay tuition fees. Suppose they decided to be selfish on the grounds that they weren't going to use these new facilities so why pay?

ricimaki

If the vote goes through, what would be a projected completion/opening date for the new facilities? When would construction start?

Jester252

Chimaera wrote: »

A majority of students (61 %) did in fact support the referendum last year, but the referendum failed to reach the qualified majority (66 %) required by the SU constitution in order to pass.

After this vote, the Students' Union sought feedback from students on why they voted no (or yes) and found that the main stumbling block was the proposal for a new Student Centre, with a general lack of information also being cited as a reason.

There is unlikely to be another vote if this one fails.

If it fails, Maguire's pitches will remain as they are meaning our field clubs suffer, either in performance by not being able to train during winter, or financially by paying for training facilities elsewhere.

If it fails, the Outdoor Pursuits Club does not regain its main training facility, the climbing wall.

If it fails, the Sub-Aqua Club will not have access to a diving facility in the area.

If it fails, the 35 societies who have supported two referenda for improved facilities for clubs get nothing in return. These societies are operating with limited facilities in a lot of cases, many of them having little or no access to storage space, having limited access to rooms in the University to hold events and meetings. These societies are betting on the Student Centre to come through for them so they can grow and improve.

I suppose you've never set foot inside the Student Centre or the Arena in your time here as a student? Those facilities only exist because students in 1995 voted yes to a levy to help towards the construction of them. This was a time when people still had to pay tuition fees. Suppose they decided to be selfish on the grounds that they weren't going to use these new facilities so why pay?

Remember that the improved facilities will only effect a minority of student. Maybe C&S people will do well not to imply that people who do not wanted to fund these are greedy.

After all who is looking for student to give them more money, on top of what C&S get from the university fees, to fund their interests and social life.

Cael Rowley

Chimaera wrote: »

The provision of academic facilities is the university's purview and they appear to be unwilling to allow the Students' Union to fundraise towards provision of such facilities. My guess here is it puts the University too much in thrall to the SU.

Well I completely disagree with the universities view on this and believe that people should be allowed to fund for whatever they want.

Chimaera wrote: »

The library was due to be extended 3 years ago until the government pulled funding from all higher education capital projects that had not been commenced at that time. The plan is still in place awaiting funding.

The funding for this could easily come from the levy charge if allowed.

Chimaera wrote: »

A majority of students (61 %) did in fact support the referendum last year, but the referendum failed to reach the qualified majority (66 %) required by the SU constitution in order to pass.

I find that figure very undiscerning.

Chimaera wrote: »

After this vote, the Students' Union sought feedback from students on why they voted no (or yes) and found that the main stumbling block was the proposal for a new Student Centre, with a general lack of information also being cited as a reason.

This feedback was obviously biased against those who voted no.

Chimaera wrote: »

If it fails, Maguire's pitches will remain as they are meaning our field clubs suffer, either in performance by not being able to train during winter, or financially by paying for training facilities elsewhere.

If it fails, the Outdoor Pursuits Club does not regain its main training facility, the climbing wall.

If it fails, the Sub-Aqua Club will not have access to a diving facility in the area.

If it fails, the 35 societies who have supported two referenda for improved facilities for clubs get nothing in return. These societies are operating with limited facilities in a lot of cases, many of them having little or no access to storage space, having limited access to rooms in the University to hold events and meetings. These societies are betting on the Student Centre to come through for them so they can grow and improve.

These societies and facilities have nothing to do with me and I should not be charged a levy for those that do. Instead why not consider increasing the charge to join those clubs and societies that do make use of it instead of charging everyone else for their own interests.

Chimaera wrote: »

This has nothing to do with any courses, sport-based or otherwise. In fact, academic courses get far more in investment than the sports ones are ever going to get.

I may be wrong but I was under the impression that a higher portion of people in those courses would be in those societies. But I guess that is irrelevant.

Chimaera wrote: »

If you think everyone in CSIS should get a laptop from the SU, why not raise it with your class rep and ask them to bring it to the Student Council? This is how C&S have brought this referendum forward. Members of the clubs and societies have brought their issues to their committees who have then brought it to the C&S Council. The proposal gains support (or doesn't there) and can mandate the union to hold a referendum.

I do not believe that everyone in CSIS should get a free laptop I said it to point out that charging everyone for something that would only benefit those in csis would never pass. It seems that if people in clubs and socs want to charge everyone for their own personal interests people think its fair, but if others outside of sporting clubs and socs want to charge everyone for their personal interests it is unfair.

Chimaera wrote: »

I suppose you've never set foot inside the Student Centre or the Arena in your time here as a student? Those facilities only exist because students in 1995 voted yes to a levy to help towards the construction of them. This was a time when people still had to pay tuition fees. Suppose they decided to be selfish on the grounds that they weren't going to use these new facilities so why pay?

No I have no use for the arena or the pitch or the boat club and shouldn't be charged for them. Also tuition fees are another subject entirely, if people want an arena then they themselves should pay a levy for it instead of charging every single person for their own needs. Whats selfish is charging everyone for something that only a portion of us want, what isn't selfish is not wanting to pay for something I will never use.

Ginge Young

ricimaki wrote: »

If the vote goes through, what would be a projected completion/opening date for the new facilities? When would construction start?

As far as I am aware the timeline is 12-18 months for the Pitches, 24 months for the Arena Extension/Handball Alley and the design team for the student centre will report back with a design after 12 months.

Cael Rowley,

Completely understand your points and where you are coming from. This is why a referendum is held to decide it through a democratic process.

While you may not get a direct benefit yourself as you do not use the arena, the pitches or the boathouse, the point is that the benefit is there for everyone to avail from should they choose to.

However with regards the design for the Student Centre, this is something that could benefit everyone because it could house many facilities that people have been requesting for a quite a while. In particular study areas (external to library), group work rooms, more social/chill out areas and a student kitchen.

The University is a community of students, the community decides what it wants to do, it does this by a referendum, not a simple majority referendum but a super majority referendum.

I've heard similarities being drawn to local communities collecting funds to create a community pool or hall. While not directly similar this is essentially the community deciding if they want to do this or not. There is more to University and learning than just the lectures/tutorials/labs - UL's is an amazing University for so many other reasons and I personally believe in continuing with this.

In some respects this is essentially asking people to contribute to this University community to make it even better for current and future students. I don't believe there may be any convincing you, but I just thought I would share my thoughts.

Moxy Shazbot

Cael Rowley wrote: »

this is supposed to be a democratic decision and we the students voted no last year because the majority of us have no use for the arena or a new pitch.

Technically wrong. It was like 64% Yes and 36% no but it has to be more than 66%. So ya, you're wrong.

People pursuing sports based courses always seem get given more than those pursuing academic courses.

Evidence please. I beg of you. Considering the majority of research is pumped into science and engineering..

instead of charging everyone for these facilities hold a vote to charge those only who would use them or have the charge upgrade something that would be beneficial for all.

Have you ever used the student courtyard, arena and or boat house? All paid for by people who never got to use it.

You're not really up there in the ole logic.

Moxy Shazbot

Ignore my response above I read as far as that comment and had to respond. Only to realise Chimera had already done so.

Just because you don't agree with it or find figures discerning doesn't mean it's not correct.

DJCR

As a Graduate I'm being completely selfish in asking this as I will never have to pay, though I did leave my bit of the boathouse behind me.

Anywho, the way I look at it, the better the UL campus gets and the better access to facilities students have, the better prestige and (arguably) the better/more students UL will attract from abroad.

As most of you probably know there is a third level funding crisis in this country and one way of raising funds is to attract foreign students who pay top bucks to learn in our fabulous establishments.

The more foreign students we attract, the better for all our Irish students as well as they get to benefit from the increased funds in the form of increased tutorials, small classes etc.

Do I believe for one minute people will solely base their decision on these specific facilities, nope. But it may tip the balance in ULs favor and in this climate, every little helps. Also don't forget UL is advertised as Irelands' Sporting Campus.

In addition, the more prestigious and attractive UL gets, the more prestigious and attractive our qualifications from there become. Don't be fooled there is snobbery out there and everyone wants to finish top of the table.

So there is an outside the box, even if you don't use it you may still benefit from it reason for voting yes. To be fair the yes campaign has been well run and had ticked all the really good reasons for doing it.

Nice to see people keeping campaign promises.

Moxy Shazbot

^This +1

I'm damn proud to be from UL and to have bragging rights for the biggest campus in Ireland and we're only 40 years old.

Gael23

I was going to vote No but now I think I've changed my mind.
I voted No last time because I felt that €130 was way too much to ask but this is around the same level as the previous levy so is much more bearable. Im in 4th year so will never have to pay it either way.

Dante on Fire

Hello voters!

As you may be aware the voting is now live you can vote here:

VOTE

To aid you in your vote please take a look at the information campaign:

INFO

Made up your mind? Swerving to one side? take a look at the pages below for the debate.

YES

&

NO

Please make an informed decision and the very best of luck to the teams involved in all the campaigns and thank you for casting your vote.

Paddy
VP/Academic

Current VOTE count: 1197

VoteUL14

I find it a joke that there is a referendum on campus and only one side of the argument is being shoved in our faces.

For it to be a FAIR and EQUAL referendum should not BOTH sides being equally represented on campus?


It was only yesterday that I started to see the NO side of the argument trickle through on Facebook. Only after an ERB meeting, were others complaining that it was not an EQUAL referendum?


For the Student Body to make an INFORMED choice today they should have been presented with ALL the facts from BOTH sides not just one side that seems to be pushed pushed pushed by Clubs and Societies individuals. Whom I feel will be the only ones to benefit in the long run if the referendum goes through.

How will non Clubs and Societies orientated students benefit? Students that use the current climbing wall, students who don't play hurling (ie hurling walls), those that simple don't play sports; how will an extra 67 euro benefit them??

Honest question.

Ginge Young

VoteUL14 wrote: »

I find it a joke that there is a referendum on campus and only one side of the argument is being shoved in our faces.

For it to be a FAIR and EQUAL referendum should not BOTH sides being equally represented on campus?


It was only yesterday that I started to see the NO side of the argument trickle through on Facebook. Only after an ERB meeting, were others complaining that it was not an EQUAL referendum?


For the Student Body to make an INFORMED choice today they should have been presented with ALL the facts from BOTH sides not just one side that seems to be pushed pushed pushed by Clubs and Societies individuals. Whom I feel will be the only ones to benefit in the long run if the referendum goes through.

How will non Clubs and Societies orientated students benefit? Students that use the current climbing wall, students who don't play hurling (ie hurling walls), those that simple don't play sports; how will an extra 67 euro benefit them??

Honest question.

Just to be clear there was funding made available for three campaigns.

1) The Information Campaign - Which is being run by the SU.
2) The Yes Campaign - Which is being run by a wide variety of people.
3) The No Campaign - They are there but I can't offer much more on it.

While I am for a fair and equal - one side cannot be punished simply as it has put a lot of time into gathering the bodies and spending the time organising.

I respect that individuals came forward for a no campaign - but essentially the No side is, you will save 67 euro. Even in a lecture where there was nobody from the No campaign the lecturer had asked for someone to come forward, no one did, and I even said that so people were aware.

Edit: Sorry to clarify your last point. The everyday UL student will benefit through contributing to the design of the Student Centre, which can include many much needed facilities that people are looking for - such as Study Rooms, Group Work Rooms, Chill out Areas, Student Kitchen etc. The possibilities are endless.

The ungrade to Maguires will provide flood-lit areas where people can go running in the evenings (not just Clubs/Socs people).

The extension to the Arena is also valuable not only to C&S but also the general student members who will have other facilities available to them.

(Hope that clarifies a bit more).

Doubt Edit: Sorry if the post is rushed, I'm campaigning at the moment as well and talking to people. So trying to keep tabs on everything.

freyners

VoteUL14 wrote: »

I find it a joke that there is a referendum on campus and only one side of the argument is being shoved in our faces.

For it to be a FAIR and EQUAL referendum should not BOTH sides being equally represented on campus?


It was only yesterday that I started to see the NO side of the argument trickle through on Facebook. Only after an ERB meeting, were others complaining that it was not an EQUAL referendum?


For the Student Body to make an INFORMED choice today they should have been presented with ALL the facts from BOTH sides not just one side that seems to be pushed pushed pushed by Clubs and Societies individuals. Whom I feel will be the only ones to benefit in the long run if the referendum goes through.

How will non Clubs and Societies orientated students benefit? Students that use the current climbing wall, students who don't play hurling (ie hurling walls), those that simple don't play sports; how will an extra 67 euro benefit them??

Honest question.

Simply put, UL wants to market itself as a first class university then it needs to have first class facilities in all areas, be it education facilities such as the new building beside the MSSI, or these new facilities. These facilities have the potential to attract new students, increasing numbers on campus, which leads to greater funding for UL to invest in other areas.

Also there is a NO campaign, it might no be visible but thats hardly the fault of those pushing the yes vote

VoteUL14

freyners wrote: »

Simply put, UL wants to market itself as a first class university then it needs to have first class facilities in all areas, be it education facilities such as the new building beside the MSSI, or these new facilities. These facilities have the potential to attract new students, increasing numbers on campus, which leads to greater funding for UL to invest in other areas.

Also there is a NO campaign, it might no be visible but thats hardly the fault of those pushing the yes vote

I never stated that there wasn't one. Just that it was not being equally represented. There is a difference.

freyners

VoteUL14 wrote: »

I never stated that there wasn't one. Just that it was not being equally represented. There is a difference.

Again, the funding is available for both. The academic officer here has linked both the yes and no sides pages. How are they not equal? One having a better presence than the other due to better planning and seemingly better support doesnt mean its not equal

Chimaera

VoteUL14 wrote: »

I never stated that there wasn't one. Just that it was not being equally represented. There is a difference.

The Yes campaign have made the effort and have people working their asses off on the ground and online to advocate a Yes vote.

If those supporting a No vote haven't bothered to get bodies on the ground to make their side of the argument, it's their fault. They've had the same opportunities to make their argument and haven't taken them.

Jester252

I hate the "it's only this amount a week, just buy one less blank" argument.

Owen_S

So they're asking thousands of students to pay a levy for stuff that a fraction will get to use? And thats on top of the €258/year I already have to pay to the Arena just to use some of the facilities, seems like a no-brainer for me.

Skyrim

I find some of the yes side to be condescending and defensive when asking questions of them tbh

freyners

Skyrim wrote: »

I find some of the yes side to be condescending and defensive when asking questions of them tbh

While I'm not part of the YES campaign team I am encouraging all that I meet to vote yes and have been following this project for some time so if there is anything you would like answered post it here and I'll do my best. There are people far better read up on this here too

freyners

Owen_S wrote: »

So they're asking thousands of students to pay a levy for stuff that a fraction will get to use? And thats on top of the €258/year I already have to pay to the Arena just to use some of the facilities, seems like a no-brainer for me.

One thing, why you might not use any of the facilities directly (although if you use the gym then the extension alone would see a benefit given) the knock on effect of the facilities will certainly be of benefit to all students. I wrote about this earlier if you want to have a look

As an aside

It seems to be a tactic of the NO side to keep emphasising that the projects affect a minority. While the projects that are perceived as exclusively C&S (climbing wall/pitches etc) might only affect a relative few, the arena extension affects benefits anyone who uses the gym/pool/indoor courts/classes/other facilities. I'd imagine this number is a lot higher than most realise

Chimaera

Owen_S wrote: »

So they're asking thousands of students to pay a levy for stuff that a fraction will get to use? And thats on top of the €258/year I already have to pay to the Arena just to use some of the facilities, seems like a no-brainer for me.

If you weren't a student, you'd be paying €495 per year. And if you weren't a UL student, you'd be paying €265 for 8 months' membership, rather than the €258 you pay for a full year. Those discounts exist because UL students paid towards the cost of constructing the Arena through a similar levy in the past.

Even if only some students benefit directly, we all benefit indirectly from the increased profile of UL as a place with amazing facilities for its students.

If you are not a sporting person, this referendum offers you the opportunity to have input into the construction of a new Student Centre, and right now that one's a blank canvas.

freyners

Chimaera wrote:

If you are not a sporting person, this referendum offers you the opportunity to have input into the construction of a new Student Centre, and right now that one's a blank canvas.

completely forgot to mention this one

seen2Bgreen

i couldn't care less whether i'll be around to use the facilities fully. the arena wasn't always there and we got to enjoy that. i would encourage people not to think of themselves solely and look at what they can contribute to. its a fantastic initiative and way cheaper than in the boom times. Its YES for me.