http://johnsoncitypress.com/Living/article.php?id=95891

$23 Million...hmmmmmm

I liked the picture of the garage as they are going to blend it in with the rest of the campus buidings. It will solve a lot of parking problems that have been there for the last +30 some odd years. What I did not like was the mention that they are building a new tennis facility before a football stadium and new basketball arena. Misplaced priorities which are the hallmark of putting the tennis coach in charge.

I love the look of the garage- and im glad they are spending the extra money to make it look like the rest of the buildings. It could have been very ugly.

I would be more upset about the tennis courts if the tennis part were more expensive than it is- its not that much and it will be a better location. Although, personally I dont like them putting anything else up in places that a new football field could end up.

(11-16-2011 11:34 AM)etsubuc Wrote:  I love the look of the garage- and im glad they are spending the extra money to make it look like the rest of the buildings. It could have been very ugly.

I would be more upset about the tennis courts if the tennis part were more expensive than it is- its not that much and it will be a better location. Although, personally I dont like them putting anything else up in places that a new football field could end up.

Agreed. Did not mean to imply whatsoever I was not in favor of new tennis facilities. And a new track somewhere. Just that us old time fans want to see that football stadium prioritized.

(11-16-2011 08:37 AM)bucfan81 Wrote:  I liked the picture of the garage as they are going to blend it in with the rest of the campus buidings. It will solve a lot of parking problems that have been there for the last +30 some odd years. What I did not like was the mention that they are building a new tennis facility before a football stadium and new basketball arena. Misplaced priorities which are the hallmark of putting the tennis coach in charge.

You probably noticed that they followed their usual procedure of complete and total hypocrisy with the increase in student fees, especially with the throwing in of the tennis project.

(11-16-2011 11:34 AM)etsubuc Wrote:  I love the look of the garage- and im glad they are spending the extra money to make it look like the rest of the buildings. It could have been very ugly.

I would be more upset about the tennis courts if the tennis part were more expensive than it is- its not that much and it will be a better location. Although, personally I dont like them putting anything else up in places that a new football field could end up.

Did anyone doubt that Dave would get his Tennis Facility before he left the premises??

How much access will non student athletes have to these tennis courts?

I don't want to re-tread the same old ground again, but there are likely posters here who weren't the last time this was discussed in detail. "We", and by that I mean tennis fans and supporters of the tennis programs, were "promised" the tennis facility would be completed by 2008. I've got printed matter from them so stating. We all know that ETSU gets ahead of itself, and behind itself, and in its own way, but there was a very clear plan to get this done before the softball stadium, and before the baseball stadium.

I don't and won't go into all the minutiae about how all that fell apart, but this tennis project was not "thrown in". Far from it. It's been planned (solidly) for about 8-10 years now, which is at about the speed the university moves on such things, unless stanton gets behind it. And actually, I think it's *more* embarrassing that we have nada for a track.....

As to usage, my understanding is that the details are not set in stone yet, but almost beyond doubt normal students will have access. The idea had been to sell "memberships", or whatever they'll call them, for donors/faculty/staff to use, especially for the indoor courts. This will help pay for the facility, and keep it running, etc. I assume that's still part of the plan, but don't know for certain.

One can't "prioritize" a new football stadium until one knows there even will be one.

I'll tell you another thing: if I had been a student, I'd have raised holy hell when they built the parking garage at the Millenium Center and not let students use it for student use. That *should have been* all worked out and put in place way back when. When that was completed and I learned that students *weren't* allowed to use it, I was stunned beyond belief. That was simply GARGANTUAN stupidity to not have the university be part of that.

LMFAO, so they just tossed in an earmark for the tennis project. How convenient.

(11-16-2011 11:41 AM)bucfan81 Wrote:  Agreed. Did not mean to imply whatsoever I was not in favor of new tennis facilities. And a new track somewhere. Just that us old time fans want to see that football stadium prioritized.

You can't prioritize infrastructure for something that doesn't exist. No point in having a cart if you don't have a horse to pull it, but that's a whole discussion in and of itself, and has been done ad nauseum.

I'm fine with the new tennis facility. We need the parking spaces that the Hartsell Center could provide, and they've been planning to move tennis out to Summers-Taylor for years. If memory serves, they wanted to put the tennis facilities out along Seehorn Road to keep space for a new field house. Of course, if they really wanted to save space, they'd just build the tennis courts on top of the parking garage like Lipscomb did.

I've said before that I'd like to see a football stadium built out adjacent to CPA, but it's possible that they could build an arena on that spot (they should be able to find 50,000 square feet), build a track facility behind it, and a field house adjacent to the track facility and in behind CPA (replacing that gigantic jungle-gym that I've never seen anyone actually use). Then you could demolish the Dome and build a football stadium on that footprint (or flip it on its side and make the stands parallel to State of Franklin), but we're probably talking $50M to get that project rolling before you take the (likely high) demolition costs into account. It would also delay the return of football well into the 2020s, which might not be soon enough to get us into the SoCon.

I think that the tennis courts should be available to anyone in the community. When I was a student, I believe they were. Actually when I was a student anyone could use the outdoor courts- I think you had to have an ETSU ID to get inside the dome to use the indoor courts which I would often do.

Community support is important, tennis courts and walking paths should be open to the public. Why would I pay a membership when I can go to a city park for free?

So what you're saying is the students are getting their parking fees jacked up to help pay for on campus tennis courts that they won't have access to?
Not to mention btw, campus security is getting another guard shack/office, and how many of the spots in this new garage are going to be designated for faculty and for the ridiculous daycare center that's in Warf-Pickel that's endangering to children? I'm sure faculty/staff won't have to pay any additional fees, they'll just get a bunch of extra parking and students will STILL be parking out by the soccer stadium, while members of the ETSU country club will have access to tennis courts that the students paid for! And they wonder why students don't give back when they become alums... Wow.

(11-17-2011 09:42 AM)Buccaneerlover Wrote:  So what you're saying is the students are getting their parking fees jacked up to help pay for on campus tennis courts that they won't have access to?
Not to mention btw, campus security is getting another guard shack/office, and how many of the spots in this new garage are going to be designated for faculty and for the ridiculous daycare center that's in Warf-Pickel that's endangering to children? I'm sure faculty/staff won't have to pay any additional fees, they'll just get a bunch of extra parking and students will STILL be parking out by the soccer stadium, while members of the ETSU country club will have access to tennis courts that the students paid for! And they wonder why students don't give back when they become alums... Wow.

i wouldnt say the "student fees" are paying for new tennis courts. more of a displacement of the old and a need for new tennis courts. how they are utilized is up for opinion. time will ultimately tell us that. its my understanding the faculty/staff did not vote to fund the parking garage, so there will be no faculty/staff slots in it

(11-17-2011 10:19 AM)slappywhite Wrote:  

(11-17-2011 09:42 AM)Buccaneerlover Wrote:  So what you're saying is the students are getting their parking fees jacked up to help pay for on campus tennis courts that they won't have access to?
Not to mention btw, campus security is getting another guard shack/office, and how many of the spots in this new garage are going to be designated for faculty and for the ridiculous daycare center that's in Warf-Pickel that's endangering to children? I'm sure faculty/staff won't have to pay any additional fees, they'll just get a bunch of extra parking and students will STILL be parking out by the soccer stadium, while members of the ETSU country club will have access to tennis courts that the students paid for! And they wonder why students don't give back when they become alums... Wow.

i wouldnt say the "student fees" are paying for new tennis courts. more of a displacement of the old and a need for new tennis courts. how they are utilized is up for opinion. time will ultimately tell us that. its my understanding the faculty/staff did not vote to fund the parking garage, so there will be no faculty/staff slots in it

Just a question on this whole train of thought. Are the outdoor Tennis Courts "public" in terms of open access to students/staff/faculty? I know that Athletics helped to pay part of the resurfacing costs several years ago (I may be wrong on AD actually paying but I do know it was discussed and needed because the teams used the courts). So if the Athletic Department uses the courts now OR in the future, is that OK in the bounds of the "no state money" for Athletics facilities. Or is it under the guise of the "student fee"?

I'm a bit confused on what Athletics can use and can't use, or LIMIT the use of, in some circumstances.

I get the whole idea that if you build a parking garage where the tennis courts are then you need new ones. What I'm not getting is did the students vote for this? That's all well and good that faculty/staff didn't vote on it and therefore won't get spots in it, but how long will that truly last? Also, can't faculty/staff park in student lots if they want? Is a campus cop really going to write an employee a parking ticket? Come on, now.

C'mon guys, your blind anger has clouded your judgment on this one. Student fees aren't paying for this. Parking fees are. Those are two separate revenue streams. Student fees are the required fees that every student has to pay - they have no choice. Parking fees are paid by students who choose to purchase a decal to park on campus. It is not a mandatory fee, it is a voluntary expense. Also, parking services pays for their own projects with their own money. This is pretty much standard on every university campus. Anytime parking wants to build new facilities, they have to get the money from their own revenue (parking decals and citations). Let's also be honest, $25 a semester is pretty cheap for a parking fee. Moving it up to $50 a semester is still very affordable and less than most large universities.

Also, if the school chooses to eliminate an athletic facility to build a new project they are almost always going to replace it with a new one. This is just standard practice. I'm sure Dave and Yaaser are as happy as can be that this is happening, but I would be willing to bet it was a decision from outside the athletic dept. that happens to benefit their own personal interests.

And why would you assume that an on campus facility is open to the public? That is rarely the case. Yes you can walk around, but you don't have the same privileges as the students and staff who are at any university. Schools aren't the same as parks.

How are they two separate streams? They Parking fees and student fees come out of the students pockets.
Don't justify the cheap cost of it by making excuses. The students should've gotten to vote on the increase much like they did football. It's not blind anger, it's something that DIRECTLY affects the students and their wallets.
Now that said I'm not angry or mad about it, but fair is fair.
Also, they're building a new facility for tennis, which is overdue, but if you're going to earmark money from one project that the students are paying for to finance another, then students should have access to it. Especially if there aren't tennis courts on the campus for students to have access to and they had access to the ones that are being torn down.
Again, much like the soccer fees, the students had no choice in the matter, the fees were raised on them. And to quote several professors I had while I was there, ETSU doesn't have a parking issue. It has a walking issue.

And realistically what per cent of students are not going to have to pay the fee? Most will have to unless they have a limosine to drop them off and come and get them. The whole idea is that they lied to everyone when they said they HAD to have a student vote for football. It always was nonsense and still is.

(11-17-2011 05:08 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  C'mon guys, your blind anger has clouded your judgment on this one. Student fees aren't paying for this. Parking fees are. Those are two separate revenue streams. Student fees are the required fees that every student has to pay - they have no choice. Parking fees are paid by students who choose to purchase a decal to park on campus. It is not a mandatory fee, it is a voluntary expense. Also, parking services pays for their own projects with their own money. This is pretty much standard on every university campus. Anytime parking wants to build new facilities, they have to get the money from their own revenue (parking decals and citations). Let's also be honest, $25 a semester is pretty cheap for a parking fee. Moving it up to $50 a semester is still very affordable and less than most large universities.

Also, if the school chooses to eliminate an athletic facility to build a new project they are almost always going to replace it with a new one. This is just standard practice. I'm sure Dave and Yaaser are as happy as can be that this is happening, but I would be willing to bet it was a decision from outside the athletic dept. that happens to benefit their own personal interests.

And why would you assume that an on campus facility is open to the public? That is rarely the case. Yes you can walk around, but you don't have the same privileges as the students and staff who are at any university. Schools aren't the same as parks.

According to information about admissions posted online by ETSU, parking fees are currently included as part of a "campus access fee" for all full-time students. I assume this fee is mandatory, even for those who choose not to park on campus. I am currently a student, and all I had to do for a parking permit was request one. I had already paid for it in my general fees, which are charged in a non-itemized lump sum to my student account. Now, assuming certain students ARE paying although they do not park on campus, there should be a surplus of cash which theoretically could be misappropriated to other projects...

But I'm not here to theorize. We need the parking garage, bottom line. Parking has become so competitive that I'd dare call it the only sport getting enough student participation on campus.

The parking garage is a great idea which has been discussed for decades now and they are finally getting it done. It will provide parking for day students, for basketball and YES for football games soon, I hope. It is a win/win situation. We can do a garage AND 1AA football. No reason why we cannot.