Editor:

This letter is in response to the Nick Macey’s Feb. 2 column (“Golf course not up to par”), which suggested removing the University Golf Course. The desire to scrap the U’s golf course in lieu of a quick fix of parking is a ridiculous and foolish act.

I understand the U’s need to prepare for expansion and that land for expansion is limited. I agree with Macey in that the golf course is the obvious choice for expansion, but there are several reasons why the U is unable to wipe out the ninth hole in exchange for another U parking lot.

First, the U is financially strapped. The Olympics brought many great things to our campus: a renovated stadium, incredible residential housing, national exposure-but all at a cost. The U picked up the tab on a large portion of facilities that were built, thus maxing out the bond the U has with the state for renovations and improvements. The state is not willing to increase the U’s bond, thus leaving the U to have to put expansion projects on hold unless a financial donor is willing to pick up the tab for any new projects.

Second, the cost of building a parking lot is more expensive than students think. In 2002, then-U President Bernie Machen created a parking committee to examine the U’s options to curb the growing parking problem. Being one of the members of that committee, I found that the U’s bond won’t allow for additional expansion. The U could build a parking structure, but due to financial restraints, would need the structure to pay for itself, thus creating another pay lot.

Also, our studies found that many of the U’s utility lines run throughout the U’s golf course. Any expansion on the golf course would require utilities to be rerouted in order for a structure to be placed there.

The committee ultimately decided that there was no reason to build a parking structure to ease the parking problem. On one hand, students are unwilling to walk or take the shuttle from an E lot to get closer to their desired destinations. The other issue lies solely on Commuter Services and its willingness to oversell the U Passes. The demand far exceeds the supply, and a remedy is rather simple.

My proposal will not be popular among students who are freshmen and sophomores: I propose that availability of U Passes be based on class. Graduate students and seniors should have first choice, with a week in which to purchase a U Pass. Juniors and sophomores would then have a week to purchase a U Pass. The freshman class would only be allowed to purchase an E Pass.

I believe that this is a far better solution than eliminating the golf course-especially since it isn’t even an option for the foreseeable future. So, until then, FORE!

Marcus Lopez

Alumnus