News

Proposed athletic fund drawing sweat

The passing of the Beach Legacy Referendum would result in “increasing the value of your degree,” according to David Benedict, the senior associate athletics director of external relations at Cal State Long Beach.

Currently, $43 of CSULB student fees go toward the athletics department. If the BLR is passed, student fees for athletics will be $95 per semester, and $70 for summer, meaning that the current student fee for athletics will more than triple, amounting to $190 annually starting in 2010.

Benedict argued for the BLR, saying, “When you build facilities, you have to maintain them.” He explained that the university has been turned down on multiple occasions when asking to host post-season athletics and NCAA tournaments. This is affecting current student athletes, as well as the recruitment process for the university’s teams.

Andersen Ho, a history graduate student, said he would vote no on the BLR because, “I’m not going to all the events so I’m not going to be using the facilities.” Ho said he thinks athletic boosters should sponsor the projects outlined in the BLR.

“I’d vote yes,” said Shawna Wilson, a freshman business management major. “Newer facilities for $95 – it’s more money, but compared to what we already pay, it wouldn’t be that much more.”

Jarrod West said he would probably vote no on the BLR. “There is better stuff you can spend the money on,” said West, a sophomore construction management engineering major. He said that the current economy is in too bad of a situation to have student fees increased by that much.

Benedict said the athletic department would not soley rely on the BLR fund for the proposed athletic structure and operations revamp. “We don’t expect that our students are going to pay for all of these facilities.” He explained that the department would continue tapping into the local community for assistance in the construction of future athletic structures and maintenance of current structures.

“We are reaching out to the city for support for our athletics,” Benedict said.

Trung Tran, a senior information systems major, said that the passing of the BLR wouldn’t be beneficial to those who aren’t athletes. He is unsure of whether or not he will participate in the voting process.

“I probably won’t vote on it because I won’t be affected. If it’s encouraging them [athletes] to play better, then it could be good,” Tran said.

The athletic department decided to start charging students the larger fee in 2010 because they’re “going to need a full year to put this in place.” The department has already contacted contractors to start drawing up plans for the renovations to the campus, according to Benedict.

Benedict, along with 49er Athletic Club Development Coordinator Wayne Stickney, said the department absolutely believes there will be an increase in sporting event attendance just with the developments to the campus’ sport facilities.

Other universities in the surrounding areas are currently charging students significantly more than CSULB is charging for its athletic programs.

According to statistics from the CSULB athletic department, students are annually charged $405 at UC Davis, $304 at UC Irvine, $295 at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, $186 at UC Santa Barbara and $171 at UC Riverside.

16 Comments

  1. Avatar
    read union weekly

    Dear Believe it or not, the IRA is in a different category according to the student fee breakdown. Why isn’t the Union Weekly italicized, or even mentioned? Not even the Union can get the figures right (their new issue says the fee is $93), but at least they don’t write a long public relations piece to sell it like the 49er. The only thing in your post that’s true is the last line that mentions ‘how hard increases are on students’ Every news report about the economy tells me that only students whose mommy’s and daddy’s can afford it will be freshmen in fall 2010 if this passes. Them and any athletes that get scholarships from the fee. When you rob Peter to pay Paul, Paul has to cut his macaroni and cheese rations or drop out of college.

  2. Avatar
    Believe it or not, it is possible to read both publications

    I just looked through the proposal too. Yes, the Daily Forty-Niner was one of the groups listed as a beneficiary, but it was only included as an example of what student groups might be helped by the IRA funds that are freed up. Just because the funds are freed up does not mean that the newspaper will get them. In all likelihood, the amount of money given to the Forty-Niner will not change and the funds will be given to groups that have been pitifully underfunded because athletics was taking so much of the pot. Further more, The Union – that paper that some posters so obviously worship – is also going to be affected. As it is owned and paid for by ASI, it just might reap the benefits of the additional $800,000 that will go back into ASI’s personal coffer. Oh, and, by the way, their funding comes out of those handy student fees that we already have to pay. No wonder they’re mum about how hard fee increases are on students.

  3. Avatar
    read union weekly

    This is getting messier as I follow it. I thought the 49er was just making mistakes in their stories. The cost is extremely not clear. Is it going to be $95 total or $138 total. I decided to look up the Legacy plan on csulb.edu. There it is in plain print under the title “Pursuit of Excellence.” It looks like a new $95 sports fee, and way down the page shows why the Daily 49er is intentionally botching the story and confusing readers. Under ‘Beneficiaries’ is the “Daily 49er”, in italics. It’s the only beneficiary IN italics. There is a special interest in helping run this thing through. Aren’t there ethics for newspapers anymore? If I believe the 49er stories, every elected person on ASI harmonizes with this. Not one Senator or other representative is quoted as being against it. Really? How about searching for the truth and letting us know. You guys are helping promote an agenda that will cause financial harm. So sad.

  4. Avatar

    ‘voice of reason’ do you think this has a chance with Troutner playing crooked politics and a flaming bigot like Jason Aula supporting it? If the public relations posters don’t include the negatives of this referendum, we will mount a counter campaign using the one-way messages as our proof that this is unfair and foul to future students and their families. The Wellness Center campaign cost thousands of dollars and didn’t include one negative impact, If this one does the same, a more sophisticated and informed student body will see right through it. Vote No until accurate costs are produced. There is no bottom line to this blank check.

  5. Avatar

    Wow, Jason, you just repeated what was written in the first sentence! *golf clap* Anyways, few people go to any of the games (which is very unfortunate) and I just cannot support fee increases on something that no one will use. Besides, we average students aren’t even allowed to use the track except for ungodly hours before 7 AM and after 6 PM. Let’s wait until this economic crisis passes, then demand more money from our students.

  6. Avatar

    Nothing supported by Jason Aula will get my Yes vote. This little bigot is a moron. VOTE NO!!!

  7. Avatar
    read the union

    Aula is smarter than I thought. At least he can read the 49er, but that doesn’t take much education.

  8. Avatar

    This fee increase will increase the value of our degree. For some individuals athletics is how one gets to college and more scholarships will be added. Ultimately help our excellent athletic programs will help enhance our academics as well.

  9. Avatar
    Voice of Reason

    Vote yes! We are already getting a bargain. What do you people want, a drop to division 2 so your degree will be worth even less and the university less visible and unknown?

  10. Avatar
    Voice of Reason

    Vote yes! We are already getting a bargain. What do you people want, a drop to division 2 so your degree will be worth even less and the university less visible and unknown?

  11. Avatar

    Every attempt has been made to post a voice of reason. Because this topic is so controversial and I’m not Anglo, it’s blocked. That’s the sign of a true jock strap. Who is boning the administrative exec on the staff at the 49er?

  12. Avatar

    It’s fixed, Michael Yee. That’s why the paper ballot isn’t available. It would put the motion in danger of not passing because it would be too visible.

  13. Avatar

    LB State education is a bargain compared to other states. This will not harm students, and will help to enhance their experience on campus.

  14. Avatar
    random reader

    I would vote YES because the increase is still LESS than most of our competitive schools when you combine both our semesters combined!

  15. Avatar

    This is not only a Referendum for the Athletic Department, but a Referendum for the students. The BLR will give currently borrowed money back to ASI and IRA for student and instructionally-related activities. Getting this type of money back appeals to even the most general student who doesn’t attend any athletic events. There would be more money for theatre, arts, club sports, intramurals, student activities, etc. It goes on and on. The BLR is for the campus, not just Athletics.

  16. Avatar

    VOTE YES!!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Daily 49er newsletter

Instagram