After record participation in the 2010 spring election, the NAT is down. Following weeks of intense debate the University of Wisconsin's student body voted down the ballot initiative that would renovate the Natatorium and add about 54 dollars to student's segregated fees in the future. The proposed facility would have everything from an all-purpose indoor turf facility to expanded fitness areas. The upgrade may certainly be a worthwhile proposal, but as many on this campus would never see nor pay for these renovations, it's not hard to see why it failed to pass.
With the votes cast and the campaign over, the future of the Natatorium is still in the air. Now Rec Sports will have to either turn to private donations to fund the proposed new Natatorium or try to vote on it again. Another vote could prove difficult as this year's campaign ran into a plethora of issues that caused many to question the process that subsidized it.
Funded by Rec Sports, the NatUP Campaign spent an astounding $30,000. That's a lot of money. The idea that Rec Sports would want to spend that much money again for another campaign is almost out of the question. The money clearly could have been used in better ways and many students were outraged when they found out how much the department spent on the failed campaign. Spending more of the schools' money would only infuriate students more. The chances of the project passing the next time around will be extremely small if they tried the same strategy again. If they do find that putting the project to a vote is necessary, there are a few things that may increase the chances of it passing.
If Rec Sports started a true grass roots campaign funded by donations from students and alumni, the Natatorium may have a marginally better chance of passing. However, this would be difficult considering you still run into the problem that many students are apathetic to the project as it won't affect them. One way to combat this apathy is to find a particular group of students who may find the proposal particularly beneficial. For example the band, a team or a student organization may find the fact that it will benefit their group motivation enough to campaign for it. So now instead of spending $30,000 and having one campaign, you may have many separate grass roots campaigns that spend nearly zero University dollars. However, this may also prove problematic, as convincing a group of such motivational benefits would be difficult.
Rec Sports is better off going to a group of people who, as it turns out, are very reliable at giving money—alumni. While this may be a challenge as this building is not for educational purposes, it may be the best option Rec Sports has. After all, alumni and other private donors have given millions of dollars for past renovations and projects the school has undertaken. It may take longer and pose a significant challenge, but if Rec Sports wants to be serious about this project a solid fundraising campaign will certainly accomplish the mission.
Although the ballot initiative failed, there is still hope for the Natatorium to be renovated. While the proposed project may certainly be worthwhile, a new strategy must be employed to bring about those changes. Trying to push the project through again on another student vote will almost certainly end in failure. It may not be an easy task but raising the funds through private donors is the best chance Rec Sports has to renovate the Natatorium.
Matt Payne is a sophomore intending to major in Chinese and economics. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
