I just learned about the proposed renovations to the Memorial Union. While I agree that updating the MU is a reasonable goal for our growing campus, I am a little skeptical about the proposal to fund the updates by increasing student fees. I have two questions that I’d like answered before submitting my vote in the upcoming Student Government General Election.

First, why should we pass on higher fees to future students who will enroll after the MU has been paid for? Once the fees are raised, they will presumably never return back to pre-construction levels. According to my back-of-napkin calculations — and I stress that these are very rough calculations! — it would take about 12 years for the increased student fees to cover the $65 million cost of renovation. Twelve years seems like a long time, but the fee increases would last much, much longer.

Before I vote on this project, I’d like to know if there is some reason why it would be necessary to fund the renovations onward in perpetuity. If it’s not necessary to fund them forever, then perhaps the fee increases should come with an expiration date.

My second question has two parts: What is the recruitment and retention value of a renovated MU, and has that value been factored into the price quoted to students? A renovated MU would presumably attract students to the university and help the university to retain students once they enroll. So the renovations should generate revenue. I’d like some kind of assurance that this revenue would be passed on to the students who would be funding the project.