Responses to our Project

Responses

The following is a sampling of the conversation that has been going on at our Facebook group. We have selected comments which we think are either amusing or relevant and are generally decently thought out, as opposed to strings of obscenities. :)

All comments are the opinions of their authors and are not necessarily the same opinions held by the operators of this website. If you are an author of a comment, and would like it removed, please contact us. Thanks.

Alex Scott wrote at 2:35pm on September 10th, 2007
Like they said, it's temporary. It's supposed to get people used to having limited parking in the center of campus. Now had they started the construction on Sangren, and got rid of the parking lot all at once, you all would be bitching at how no-body can park there. This is supposed to ease the already large parking problem once the construction starts.
- Dustin Spicuzza wrote at 2:43pm on September 10th, 2007
  Most of us aren't faculty and can't park there anyways. :p
  
  Besides, so what if people complain about losing their parking? I'd rather have people complaining than wasting $120,000...
- Jon Anderson wrote at 2:47pm on September 10th, 2007
  The biggest complaint we have is that the lot costs $120k and is only temporary. If they plan on tearing it up in a year or two then they should have found something cheaper to do, or at least made it more attractive. At the moment it is a $120,000 eyesore. A parking lot, or even a nice looking temporary plaza would have been far better.
Kait Sands wrote at 10:10pm on September 10th, 2007
In response to the Sangren issue... I don't know why they spent that much money, but it IS just a temporary thing while they wait to start construction. They haven't started construction on Sangren yet because they have to finish Brown first. I agree that they should have found a cheaper alternative, but this is what they came up with...

Regarding the ignorant statement about our tuition: did you know that WMU had the LOWEST tuition hike in Michigan? Total, the tuition and fees only raised 5.7%. The AVERAGE rate of hikes was 10... I think CMU had about 20% or 21% if I remember correctly (don't quote me on that, but I know it was close to that)... so check it out before you make ignorant assumptions abut things like that. Comments about not understanding the parking lot or the rock garden are not ignorant... but comments about the tuition hike is when you are so pissed about it... We are the second cheapest public university in the state; EMU's tuition and fees aren't too far behind ours... So be HAPPY that tuition and fees didn't get raised 10%!!!

As I said before... I don't understand why they spent that much money on that, and I can understand why someone would not understand th rock garden, but the rest of your statements are ridiculous... research things before you say them... or don't research them and just be ignorant... it's your choice...
- Jon Anderson wrote at 11:24pm on September 10th, 2007
  The tuition hike is not the point of our complaints, but the fact is tuition raised greater than inflation even though the value of the education has stayed the same. Western is asking more money of its students than it used to, and there are complaints of a budget crisis while money is being dumped into a project like this with no apparent input from the student body. I don't think it has been made very clear in the website, but the biggest goal I have with this protest is not really to point out that the lot was a waste of money, since that won't really change anything, but it is to convince Western to put more consideration towards the thoughts of the students when it comes to spending large amounts of the budget. If anyone outside of the people who approved this had taken a look at the actual plans, there could have been resistance to it from the beginning, and the university could have done something more fiscally responsible and aesthetically pleasing with the lot.
- Dustin Spicuzza wrote at 11:48pm on September 10th, 2007
  After working there for over 4 years, I've come to the conclusion that the one of biggest problems with WMU is there is a HUGE ingrained culture of "Well, we've always done it this way, and I can't change it.". Its this culture of acceptance, one that just lets things happen instead of making things happen.
  
  Which, yes, theres been some superficial changes like changing the president, and hopefully he will be able to make a difference... but this is a deeply engrained culture. Every staff member and administrative assistant I've talked to agrees with this point. The real change needs to come at a deeper level than just the presidency and some random top officials. Its not one particular person or group of people. Its that there is far too much bureaucracy and red tape built into the WMU way of doing things, that projects like this parking lot (and other frivolous projects) are the result. That is what needs to be changed, for WMU to be what it could be.
  
  And this, this I think is our opportunity to point this out, in a very public way, so that the entire WMU community is not only aware of this, but talking about it. Not hiding away in corners criticising the administration, but doing at least *something* about it. This parking lot, in my opinion, is the biggest publicly visible (I use that phrase with meaning) problem with the WMU way of doing things. It needs to change. Statements such as "I agree that they should have found a cheaper alternative, but this is what they came up with...", that is typical of the WMU culture of acceptance. And it won't change things (of course, this may not either, but... )
Adrienne Bredahl wrote at 11:57am on September 11th, 2007
As a member of the art department who has been locked in the basement of Sangren and in Knollwood, the idea of spending $120,000 on a parking lot is ridiculous! The School of art has been running on old worn out supplies and equipment for years... we're moving into Khorman at the end of this sememter, but the teachers were given a budget of half of what they needed to get the equipment up to date. This means that the students will enter their beautiful new classrooms and see all of the old drawing cubes, throwing wheels, jewerly and sculpture equipement... The Chemists got a whole new building - all we're asking for is new equipement.

How can we send the message to WMU in a more solid way other than the planned price tags?? Is there a way to file a complaint? Can anyone answer this for me? Thanks
Magan Lippman wrote at 5:17pm on September 11th, 2007
Instead of painting the ugly lines on the ground.... they could have seen if anyone from the art department would have liked to paint murals on the ground.... maybe section it all off and have a bunch of different people come in and paint stuff that could relate to the university
Joe Orchanian wrote at 2:12am on September 12th, 2007
For the same price as this biologically unproductive blight on our campus, WMU could have purchased 12 GEM pickup trucks for use by the landscaping crews. These trucks would have reduced overall campus costs by eliminating the fuel cost, as well as eliminating the cloud of exhaust fumes that follows the current ageing fleet of maintenance vehicles. Ever walk to class and walk behind one of the current models? You know what I mean.

http://www.gemcar.com/build/accBuild.asp?model=7
Lowell Rinker wrote at 9:47pm on September 12th, 2007
Hi, I'm Lowell Rinker, VP for Business & Finance at WMU. Just thought I'd add my perspective to this discussion. When the Chemistry Building went up, we lost some core green space on main campus. Many folks, including the Faculty Senate Campus Planning & Finance Council, feel that the new green space needs to be the Sangren lot....I agree. There are a couple of issues: 1) we are hopeful that WMU will recieve a capital outlay appropriation from the State to fund the long overdue renovation of Snagren Hall. When that happens, the Sangren lot will be needed for a construction lay down area for approxiamtely 18 months. 2) To do the green space right, it would take much more than the $120,000 spent....we couldn't in good conscience spend the roughly $800,000 needed for irrigation, drainange, concrete and other items needed to create the appropriate green space, only to have it ripped up by construction processes. We are heartened to see the significant student usage so far.
- Dustin Spicuzza wrote at 11:14pm on September 12th, 2007
  Thanks for your perspective.
  
  Unfortunately, you're missing our point completely. As stated on our website, this is definitely not about green space, its about money. Putting permanent green space in the Sangren lot is probably a good idea, and should be done when it can be done right. But the fact is, WMU spent $120,000 on an ugly and TEMPORARY project (note the emphasis). Despite that $120,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall budget per year, its still a lot of money -- especially considering that WMU is cutting budgets, instituting hiring freezes, and raising tuition. THAT is the issue. If it wasn't temporary, maybe I could agree with you.
  
  The thing is, most people don't quite realize how much money WMU has wasted here. That is a big part of our goal, to raise awareness of that.
- Tony Mattas wrote at 11:40pm on September 12th, 2007
  Mr. Rinker:
  
  We have not only lost green space via the new Chemistry building, we have also lost some "green space" or as much of green space as it was with the changes done to the Miller Plaza, and the addition of the visual arts center.
  
  We have had a critical loss of Green space in the last couple years on campus, and the existing green space has been poorly maintained. I must admit being on my fifth year I used to love sitting under the tree's by the miller fountain to do homework.
  
  This is a prime example of wasteful spending, we did not need the extra standing room in the Plaza, and not only did we spend money on landscaping the area XX years ago, we also have no spent money on having these mature trees removed, having the side walk redone, and having new tables (with umbrellas to provide the same shade the was previously provided before by the trees) installed.
  
  (Since I'm out of room to type, I will continue this in my blog at http://www.mattas.net tomorrow)
Leonard L Morgan wrote at 11:17pm on September 13th, 2007
yea, 120,000 definitely seems like an unreasonable amount for few hundred square feet of pavement, especially from a student's point of view. but honestly, i walked by that lot a few times today and it really didn't look all that bad. it's definitely the nicest parking lot i've ever seen. its a temporary fix that only took a few weeks to set up and on a days this its not the worst place to tie up you bike or sit and have a cup of coffee... i'm just sayin...
- Dustin Spicuzza wrote at 11:48pm on September 13th, 2007
  I agree, $120,000 is not a lot compared to WMU's overall budget (see earlier comments on the wall). However, in a time of 'budget crisis', aren't we supposed to be cutting costs? Spending money on temporary structures, ugly or otherwise, hardly seems like a good idea.
  
  Lets not forget the initial $20,000 to $50,000 they spent last year painting the lot, and then replacing it with this current mess.
Joseph Mainwaring wrote at 5:56pm on September 14, 2007
http://www.projectsovereign.com/2007/09/14/greenspace/

My thoughts and response.
Matthew Parsons wrote at 12:56am on September 16, 2007
Hello, My name is Matthew -- I have interned in the office of one of our state Senators' offices. One of my friends joined your group. I know it is a semi-lighthearted measure but please consider the following information. Occasionally Universities that are State funded have a little bit of money that is "left-over" at the end of an academic year, money that comes from the government -- NOT the students. Since the University cannot give the money back, they HAVE to spend it before the end of the academic year, otherwise they risk losing that money the following year from our state government. If they lose that money from the government the next year, they are forced to charge the students even MORE in tuition costs. So actually, having the pointless parking lot that cost alot to build is keepng money in YOUR pocket and taking it from the government instead. In most years this money would be used as a kind of "rainy day" fund for unexpected operational costs of the University. Otherwise, those unexpected cost would go to the students and not the government. Please seriously reconsider taking the matter so seriously. If you make too much of an issue out of this, you and your fellow students will pay MORE in tuition each and every year. If I were you, I would just ignore the parking lot and keep my bank account a little larger. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.
- Dustin Spicuzza wrote at 1:21am on September 16, 2007
  You're right, at the surface, our rhetoric is rather coarse and we would appear to be talking without actually knowing what we're talking about. This is mostly a promotional tactic, and our rhetoric actually has been toned down since we started.
  
  I have worked for the university for 4 years now, and while I won't claim to be an expert, I am quite aware of the wasteful spending at the end of the fiscal year because of precisely that reason -- and this budgetary situation doesn't just happen at the government level, but even at a departmental level. I think its pretty silly (penalizing an organization/department for coming in under budget), and I would say that this type of practice should be changed at both the governmental level and the organizational/departmental level.. but as you said, it is a reality.
  
  Additionally, the problem is that there are far too many other projects that the university actually does underfund/cut. If, as you hypothesize, this was an instance of spending extra money (despite planning being done several months in advance, and the other $30-50,000 spent on painting the lot last october not falling in the same timeframe), why couldn't they have funneled the money to a more useful project, especially since the allocation happened at the highest level?
  
  I have several sources who have told me that the primary reason WMU built the parking lot was because they didn't want to deal with the complaints from opening and then reclosing the lot. Thats bullshit, pure and simple.
  
  In any case, our goal is primarily one of awareness. Most students aren't aware of thes costs involved, and the faculty and staff I've worked with are all just spreading various rumors about the cost. As a result of our efforts, people have been discussing this, and even many of the top level administrative officials have become aware of our complaint because of this. Maybe nothing will happen, but at least we tried.
Dan Higgs wrote at 11:39pm on September 17th, 2007
I was working in McCracken hall through this spring and summer. As each day went by, my coworkers and I couldn't help but wonder if we were being filmed by a hidden camera. The project was ludicrous to begin with, but it just kept getting more absurd. We watched, little by little, as the asphalt was retarred (black=greenspace), the picnic tables were put in place, the lines were painted, etc. One evening early in August we ventured out to see the resulting quagmire. Staring through the heat waves, we shielded our eyes from the blazing sun, just in time for a crow to caw as it flew overhead. Thank you Western.
Dan Kucich wrote at 12:21PM on September 18th, 2007
A cost of $120,000 is not small if no value is added. It is wasteful spending, period. Typical of Tax & Spend liberals. It is so easy to spend someone else's money, isn't it? Just charge the cost to the students and the taxpayers. It's not just $120,000, it's an additional $120,000 of wasted spending. So now the state goverment wants to raise the state income tax from 3.9% to 4.3%. Why?, because of continued wasteful spending such as this. Times, they are achangin'. Wake up WMU! It's time to provide education. If somebody needs green space, there are plenty of places to park there butts outside already.
Don Kinsley wrote at 6:32 PM on September 18, 2007 (WMMT)
We just sent our daughter to Western and we're paying for tuition out of pocket. I can't believe that the University wastes money in this manner. A comment above said this was set in motion years ago, but before you hike tuition by over five percent, you should cut unneccessary spending, that qualifies as unneccessary! Besides, it looked like parking area, and we had to pay 300 dollars for a parking pass, that doesn't reserve a parking spot incidently, with parking at a preimium, that was a waste of space. I'm shaking my head and hoping that someone will come to their senses at WMU. One good thing, there are 2 students on campus that understand proper finacial policies, let's hope that they eventually serve as Trustee's.
Dan Przyojski wrote at 10:26pm on September 18th, 2007
Our campus is already ugly enough. Who the hell do they hire to landscape? I've landscaped for 3 years and have never seen such effortless, slow, and unattractive work.

On the other hand, those pretty yellow rails are going to be fun to wax up and skate on!
Mike Ross wrote at 11:44pm on September 18th, 2007
That parking lot is nothing but bull $#**. I had to blacktop that crap this summer and you know what the worst part is besides no one wanting to sit there and them spending so damn much on it... They are tearing it all up next year so they can use it as a parking lot for construction crews when they start working on Sangren.
Brian Scott Fanning wrote at 12:35am on September 19th, 2007
Sweet, let's go protest over money that is already spent - that will make it magically grow back from the money tree - glad you hippies thought this plan through. I mean with such realistic goals (that all the money magically comes back from Hyrule), I guess that is why everyone is taking you so seriously?

So you want to make people aware? Fun.

I'm gonna go buy an endangered species and shoot it. See you guys later.
Ryan Conway wrote at 12:57am on September 19, 2007
Is the money tree an endangered species. Man if chuck norris was here he would single handedly get that money back and more importantly he would slay endangered species by the thousands using only the sound waves from his clap. (this is where the idea for that xman character arclight originated from.) All though you're points are very direct and hard to choke down you are very true. Nothing we can do will make them take back this decision and give us back our money. Westerns tuition increases aren't due to making parking lots either it's due to the current troubles the whole state is facing. This is taken from an article found here http://cbs5.com/education/local_story_200004617.html "In Michigan, which has the nation's highest unemployment rate and a projected deficit for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 of at least $1.6 billion, most public universities got less money from the state last fiscal year than in 2001-02."

For those who do not know for a public university to get less money than 5 years ago with an inflation rate of lets say about 3% over those past years means that things are getting more expensive and with less funding the money needs to come from somewhere. Kind of like how a candy bar use to be a nickel but is now like 75 cents. We should start a group trying to get cheaper candy bars.
taxed wrote at 9:22 AM on September 19, 2007 (WMMT)
I am another mother of a son who has to take another year off to get money for classes. We fall through the cracks and make three hundred dollors too much to qualify for grants. We are working poor who have no landscaping at home because we can't afford it. Put the art studebnts to work for grades to design. They will be using it and they are very talented. What happened to the fundraisers from the public school system. Raise the funds instead of using budget monies. Extras are for when you can afford them. Tightening the belt during hard times gets many people through. Is this what the "Kalamazoo Promise" is all about?
Joe M. wrote at 12:00 PM on September 19, 2007 (WMMT)
We as students simply want the university to spend wisely. Students have had increased tuition, staff have had to go without raises for a few years. Budgets have been cut, and some departments are struggling to provide essential services at the same level of quality. When I look at the temporary renovation, I do not see the money the university could have saved, I more rather see money the university could have re-invested in areas that would have been more effective to the overall operations.
Andrew Winkle wrote at 1:05 PM on September 19, 2007 (WMMT)
I am a WMU student and a close friend of both Jon and Dustin. In response to all those who understand $50000 of this project is reusable. In order to reuse these items they first must be removed from their current location and reinstalled to their new location. This new location must first be prepared. All of this will cost more money. I am of the mind that a project such as this could have been done by students without the unneeded structures. Create a student design contest with a $500 to $1000 scholarship and a reasonable supplies budget say $10000. Add a $300 to $500 administration fee to it and you get a student made work of art, usable on their resume, for approximately $12000 savings of almost $108000.
nancy wrote at 1:48 PM on September 19, 2007 (WMMT)
I am so proud of the students that investigated this. If this happened more and light brought to the dark corners, then it would make officials accountable. There is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. What happened to being practical? WMU hang your head in shame. I hope the students keep pushing on. Congradulation to all the students who question the "system".
Chuck Ringer wrote at 5:03pm
Why is this discussion still going on? Its already built, so just shut up about it. Why don't you focus this effort towards something you may actually be able to change. The administration thought they were doing something for our well being, and as you don't have a degree in anything, I'm going to go out on a limb and say they're a bit more qualified to run a university.
- Alysia Kole wrote at 5:09pm
  No offense to you at all, Chuck, but I think that you're very wrong... This discussion is still going on because more and more people are still finding out about it! Have you noticed that more and more people are joining this group EVERYDAY?
  
  I personally believe that we CAN do something! Yes, it's already built... No we can't change that... But if we stand up and say something about the mistake that was made by these "degree-bearing" individuals that are more "qualified to run a university" made a mistake and need to realize that they did! Thus, these two students came together and united the student body into a movement that will more than likely work if we get enough people involved including the news and everyone in the university.... I would also like to point out that there are also professors (those with doctorates) who are a part of this group and who support the decision to have students more involved with the financial decisions made by the university....
- Dustin Spicuzza wrote at 5:29pm on September 20, 2007
  For your information, we are now focusing on what can be done to prevent things like this in the future. We want to encourage the university to be more open in its projects and spending decisions.
  Alysia is right, this isn't just two students whining about an ugly parking lot, though thats whats getting all of the press. Its really about a LOT of students, faculty, and staff -- INCLUDING a lot of people who work on the third floor of the administrative building -- who want WMU to stop doing stupid things such as this.
  This is a step in the right direction.
- Shawn Denney wrote at 11:08pm on September 20, 2007
  I think that Chuck has a great idea. Maybe we should let them run our lives too, because they must be more qualified since they have lived longer. Yes blind faith always works. Just because the board was voted in does not mean they are more qualified to run the school.
Smiley Man wrote at 5:33pm
Students should be more involved in the financial decisions of the university. Particularly this one. WMU needs help. its not just the conditions of the state economy it is a number of things including the harsh drinking laws of michigain and the the location of campus relative to the student naeborhoods. the student body should be notified of spending prodjects prior to the actual check being writen. that is what this group should do. it would limit the university's spending and if the students were more involved some real ideas about how to get students to come to our school might get realized. Students choose this school for many reasons that go before the camups looking "good". All those old men and women on the board are generations behind us and have no real idea of what students want because they are so far away from them, in a communications stand point. and i bet (because i dont really know) that they would be against many ideas students would have just because they are old!
Rachel Smith wrote at 6:20pm on September 20, 2007
I just read the article in the Herald. I think the parking lot looks more ridiculous now than it ever had. Why not spend the money on just redoing the parking lot instead of first painting it to look like a "sunset" and now placing random tables and umbrellas in it. Why cant we benefit some of the students and turn it into parking. Its already ridiculous enough to find a parking spot!! I know it used to be employee parking. Why couldnt it stay as that. My mom works at WMU and her building is right next to that parking lot. i know its not bad to walk, but shes not exactly a young college student who can handle all the walking....i dont know, i guess some decisions are just meant to be made. Maybe we will all be pleased in the end.