Two weeks ago, after undergoing a construction project that̢۪s been under way since last March, Lot V reopened for campus parking.
According to an e-mail issued to students, the project included a renovation of the surface of the lot, expanding the total number of stalls available. The project also included the installation of ten photovoltaic structures, covering a total of 680 parking stalls, providing both shade and the capacity to convert solar energy into 1 megawatt of electricity—approximately 20 percent of the current energy demands of the University.
We are pleased that the lot has finally reopened and believe the decision to install the photovoltaic structures constitutes a rather progressive move on the university̢۪s part.
We were disheartened, however, to discover that the three northern-most structures, approximately 190 stalls, according to the e-mail, have been designated as premium reserved parking, available for rental at a rate of $50 per month. Paying for such a spot effectively guarantees the stall to be available to the permit-holder at all hours for the duration of the renter̢۪s contract.
These spots were opened up for faculty consideration along with the reopening of the lot and the remaining spots were made available for student purchase last week.
While the idea of having a semi-permanent parking spot appeals to us, it̢۪s hard for us not to see the problems with this offer.
The location of Lot V — on the southeast end of campus — is not particularly close to many classrooms. Indeed, the majority of The Collegian’s staff would be hard-pressed to voluntarily park in Lot V at all, unless forced to by excessive crowding in other lots. We believe that for the majority of students on this campus, the stalls provided by this lot constitute something of a last resort. Indeed, those buildings in closest proximity to the lot include the Smittcamp Alumni House, Joyal Administration and the Peters Business Building.
Besides this, we suspect the semester fee of $250 is outside the range of most students’ budgets — we certainly don’t have the extra cash to fork over at the beginning of the semester, after registration fees and the cost of books.
Rather, this seems to us a luxury, an offer likely to be taken up either by the very wealthy students or the faculty and administrators for whom the walk might prove a bit more convenient.
Finally, we believe the very suggestion of the necessity for a guaranteed parking spot is an implicit acknowledgment of the current dire state of parking. We have not seen many cars parked in this reserved parking as of yet, and we do not believe the university is in the position to let any more parking sit empty than already does when parking on campus is as limited as it is in the first place.
Devin • Oct 25, 2007 at 10:41 am
How do we restructure the committees that oversee parking?
I can see clearly that the important decisions are left to a few at the top. How can staff take over designated student parking places and restripe them into yellow zones without consulting the entire student body to vote on such a matter?
How is it that our university can now charge for Lot V̢۪s solar spots at a premium price without the student body voting on such matters?
Why are the restriped yellow spots located directly behind Joyal?
Has anyone else noticed they have not been even close to being used in the past two weeks since being restriped?
How did we allow these formerly (at capacity) used students parking spaces to become employee/faculty spots?
CSUF has sold more than 9,000 student parking permits at $68 for fall 2007 semester, and is ALLOWED to continue to sell permits at the full price of $68, for less than 2,400 (not including Save-Mart) available student parking places. Remember that on top of the permit parkers, the university sells daily parking permits at $3 per day, with NO quota. That means unmeasured problems for students.
Whomever is making the (so-called) decisions about parking at CSUF has blocked students from expressing their outrage and disbelief in the un-democratic process and fouled up business practices.
It’s not practical for any business to develop good relations then turn around and destroy the customer’s trust.
This is an example of what is happening to Fresno State̢۪s current business practices. The university policies are unfair regarding open public debate about new projects (such as parking) that can impact an entire community.
Not one student should let the university parking program to continue without demanding that the current policies be restructured to include a majority of student input on issues.
The students have to pay the (increased) fees.
I suggest the staff and board members start making decisions on behalf of the majority – the students and not themselves!
Devin • Oct 25, 2007 at 5:41 pm
How do we restructure the committees that oversee parking?
I can see clearly that the important decisions are left to a few at the top. How can staff take over designated student parking places and restripe them into yellow zones without consulting the entire student body to vote on such a matter?
How is it that our university can now charge for Lot V’s solar spots at a premium price without the student body voting on such matters?
Why are the restriped yellow spots located directly behind Joyal?
Has anyone else noticed they have not been even close to being used in the past two weeks since being restriped?
How did we allow these formerly (at capacity) used students parking spaces to become employee/faculty spots?
CSUF has sold more than 9,000 student parking permits at $68 for fall 2007 semester, and is ALLOWED to continue to sell permits at the full price of $68, for less than 2,400 (not including Save-Mart) available student parking places. Remember that on top of the permit parkers, the university sells daily parking permits at $3 per day, with NO quota. That means unmeasured problems for students.
Whomever is making the (so-called) decisions about parking at CSUF has blocked students from expressing their outrage and disbelief in the un-democratic process and fouled up business practices.
It’s not practical for any business to develop good relations then turn around and destroy the customer’s trust.
This is an example of what is happening to Fresno State’s current business practices. The university policies are unfair regarding open public debate about new projects (such as parking) that can impact an entire community.
Not one student should let the university parking program to continue without demanding that the current policies be restructured to include a majority of student input on issues.
The students have to pay the (increased) fees.
I suggest the staff and board members start making decisions on behalf of the majority – the students and not themselves!
Marcus • Oct 20, 2007 at 7:53 pm
We need MORE parking paved and a tram system to and fro for protected journeys. 🙂
Marcus • Oct 21, 2007 at 2:53 am
We need MORE parking paved and a tram system to and fro for protected journeys. 🙂
Jill • Oct 16, 2007 at 7:22 pm
I do my part to reduce commuting by carpooling or ridesharing. The land was misused. Whatever parking fees are incurred are small part of a much bigger picture. In the intial land use plan (submitted to Fresno City) of Lot V was a “green solution to the current parking congestion (per Chevron), to assist PG&E prevent power outages from university overloads” and to “pay for the nearly $500,000 per month utility bill” (per Dick in Facilities Management) the university incurs.
According to the Chevron website and news releases, an open forum was planned to discuss the issues, however it did not include a representative sample of the student, faculty, or employee populations. Chevron sent out press releases with preliminary information regarding an oversight committee. The full report is not available but the press release from Dec. 2006 can that can be found on their website. The CSUF master plan is available online for download, and you can visit fresnostatenews.com. The fact that new parking spaces were dangled in front of students, faculty, and employees for months, and touted as a relief plan for “congestion problems.” By having people reserve spaces at a premium rate after the fact, is too ridiculous for words.
Jill • Oct 17, 2007 at 2:22 am
I do my part to reduce commuting by carpooling or ridesharing. The land was misused. Whatever parking fees are incurred are small part of a much bigger picture. In the intial land use plan (submitted to Fresno City) of Lot V was a “green solution to the current parking congestion (per Chevron), to assist PG&E prevent power outages from university overloads” and to “pay for the nearly $500,000 per month utility bill” (per Dick in Facilities Management) the university incurs.
According to the Chevron website and news releases, an open forum was planned to discuss the issues, however it did not include a representative sample of the student, faculty, or employee populations. Chevron sent out press releases with preliminary information regarding an oversight committee. The full report is not available but the press release from Dec. 2006 can that can be found on their website. The CSUF master plan is available online for download, and you can visit fresnostatenews.com. The fact that new parking spaces were dangled in front of students, faculty, and employees for months, and touted as a relief plan for “congestion problems.” By having people reserve spaces at a premium rate after the fact, is too ridiculous for words.
Devin • Oct 16, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Have we been informed of development plans for new or altered construction through announcements, phone calls, or e-mail?
According to Fresnostsatenews.com as of Dec. 2006 the public was informed of the project and its progress. (Go to http://www.csufresno.edu/tii for more information on this project). Here̢۪s a nugget:
Planning Initiatives:
In the coming months they will be meeting with student groups, city public transit officials and a wide range of campus faculty and staff.
The planning consultants will work closely with the campus wide coordinating group to explore options for infrastructure needs, parking, and landscape. They are charged with aligning all of the campus efforts for the campus long-term growth.
The planners will engage in an in-depth process of interviewing, fact-gathering, conducting informal surveys and assessing existing data about a wide range of factors that will influence campus growth and development. The planners will analyze, assemble and report back to the coordinating body and strategic planning committee on a regular basis.
This effort will coordinate with several other plans specifically the strategic plan, academic plan, enrollment plan, technology plan and various facilities plans i.e. utility master plan, vehicular/pedestrian circulation plan, parking plan and the landscape plan. Source: http://www.fresnostatenews.com/2006/01/ConstructionUpdate.htm
And, according to news release, Chevron, Fresno State Partner in Solar-Power Parking Project:
Parking is a major consideration in the master plan as the university seeks to add spaces to meet growth needs, but not at the expense of committing more than the current 75 acres devoted to parking. Source: http://www.chevronenergy.com/news_room/default.asp?pr=pr_20070323.asp
Finally, in The Collegian Finding the last parking spot written by Carina Portillo on Aug. 28, “One possible solution to relieve parking congestion is the new “photovoltaicâ€Â solar-paneled structure being built in Lot V. This structure, in conjunction with Chevron, will help generate electricity for the campus, as well as provide additional parking.â€Â
“Nine hundred and sixty-three spaces will be added to Lot V,â€Â Armstrong explained, with a portion of them reserved for staff and faculty to purchase for 24-hour per day use.“Even with that portion taken out, there will still be more student-parking available than before the structure was built.â€Â Source: http://collegian.csufresno.edu/2007/08/28/finding-the-last-parking-spot/
Should we be asking the questions where in the “Master Planâ€Â does it state that 75 acres is set aside for the proposed project by Chevron? What was the timeline for completion when it was under development? Is its land use linked to Campus Pointe? When did “more student parkingâ€Â charge to a reserve parking fee for student use of Lot V? We will have to get the answers ourselves.
Devin • Oct 16, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Have we been informed of development plans for new or altered construction through announcements, phone calls, or e-mail?
According to Fresnostsatenews.com as of Dec. 2006 the public was informed of the project and its progress. (Go to http://www.csufresno.edu/tii for more information on this project). Here’s a nugget:
Planning Initiatives:
In the coming months they will be meeting with student groups, city public transit officials and a wide range of campus faculty and staff.
The planning consultants will work closely with the campus wide coordinating group to explore options for infrastructure needs, parking, and landscape. They are charged with aligning all of the campus efforts for the campus long-term growth.
The planners will engage in an in-depth process of interviewing, fact-gathering, conducting informal surveys and assessing existing data about a wide range of factors that will influence campus growth and development. The planners will analyze, assemble and report back to the coordinating body and strategic planning committee on a regular basis.
This effort will coordinate with several other plans specifically the strategic plan, academic plan, enrollment plan, technology plan and various facilities plans i.e. utility master plan, vehicular/pedestrian circulation plan, parking plan and the landscape plan. Source: http://www.fresnostatenews.com/2006/01/ConstructionUpdate.htm
And, according to news release, Chevron, Fresno State Partner in Solar-Power Parking Project:
Parking is a major consideration in the master plan as the university seeks to add spaces to meet growth needs, but not at the expense of committing more than the current 75 acres devoted to parking. Source: http://www.chevronenergy.com/news_room/default.asp?pr=pr_20070323.asp
Finally, in The Collegian Finding the last parking spot written by Carina Portillo on Aug. 28, “One possible solution to relieve parking congestion is the new “photovoltaic” solar-paneled structure being built in Lot V. This structure, in conjunction with Chevron, will help generate electricity for the campus, as well as provide additional parking.”
“Nine hundred and sixty-three spaces will be added to Lot V,” Armstrong explained, with a portion of them reserved for staff and faculty to purchase for 24-hour per day use.“Even with that portion taken out, there will still be more student-parking available than before the structure was built.” Source: http://collegian.csufresno.edu/2007/08/28/finding-the-last-parking-spot/
Should we be asking the questions where in the “Master Plan” does it state that 75 acres is set aside for the proposed project by Chevron? What was the timeline for completion when it was under development? Is its land use linked to Campus Pointe? When did “more student parking” charge to a reserve parking fee for student use of Lot V? We will have to get the answers ourselves.
gm • Oct 16, 2007 at 10:20 am
Jill,
First, let me point out to you that in expressing our opinions on issues such as these we are implicitly making judgements on the arguments of others. You don’t seem to have a problem passing judgement on the views held by others, you just don’t like it when someone disagrees with you. I agree that everyone deserves their say and never suggested otherwise. In contrast, you are the one who questioned my right to an opinion. I respect your right to express a viewpoint, I just found nothing “formidable” in your argument which consisted of claiming rape and no place to park. I did not question your character, just your cavalier use of language. I find it interesting that you argue that the blog is “not here to cause discourse,” then state it is “to discuss the issues.” Which one is it?
While a blog does allow spontaneity, that does not mean we should toss around terms like “rape” loosely. I am well aware of the meaning of the word “rape” and it various uses and misuses in language. I just find it offensive to use a word that describes a violent and disgusting criminal act in the context of a discussion on finding a parking space closer to my class. Even in other uses such as “rape the land,” there is the element of violence and force which is inappropriate to this discussion. We are not forced to park on campus or even attend this university. While a rape victim or the land do not have a choice, we do and that is an important distinction.
Parking in general and the use of premium parking stalls in particular are important issues that should be actively debated by all involved. I stated my opinion that premium stalls are a bad idea and that there should be more parking on campus. I also pointed out that additional parking is going to cost us, and it won’t be a small increase. That is sticking to the issue.
Finally, what on earth does take my own personal inventory mean in the context of this discussion? What an utterly laughable and inane statement. I took issue specifically with your argument and use of language. I had assumed that you simply did not consider your words carefully enough in your original post. To argue that a portion of parking spaces being assigned premium status is like rape, struck me as an argument that lacked the seriousness the topic deserved. Your reponse to my post was to demonstrate conclusively that you won’t discuss the topic in a mature and measured manner. Sounds childish to me.
gm • Oct 16, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Jill,
First, let me point out to you that in expressing our opinions on issues such as these we are implicitly making judgements on the arguments of others. You don’t seem to have a problem passing judgement on the views held by others, you just don’t like it when someone disagrees with you. I agree that everyone deserves their say and never suggested otherwise. In contrast, you are the one who questioned my right to an opinion. I respect your right to express a viewpoint, I just found nothing “formidable” in your argument which consisted of claiming rape and no place to park. I did not question your character, just your cavalier use of language. I find it interesting that you argue that the blog is “not here to cause discourse,” then state it is “to discuss the issues.” Which one is it?
While a blog does allow spontaneity, that does not mean we should toss around terms like “rape” loosely. I am well aware of the meaning of the word “rape” and it various uses and misuses in language. I just find it offensive to use a word that describes a violent and disgusting criminal act in the context of a discussion on finding a parking space closer to my class. Even in other uses such as “rape the land,” there is the element of violence and force which is inappropriate to this discussion. We are not forced to park on campus or even attend this university. While a rape victim or the land do not have a choice, we do and that is an important distinction.
Parking in general and the use of premium parking stalls in particular are important issues that should be actively debated by all involved. I stated my opinion that premium stalls are a bad idea and that there should be more parking on campus. I also pointed out that additional parking is going to cost us, and it won’t be a small increase. That is sticking to the issue.
Finally, what on earth does take my own personal inventory mean in the context of this discussion? What an utterly laughable and inane statement. I took issue specifically with your argument and use of language. I had assumed that you simply did not consider your words carefully enough in your original post. To argue that a portion of parking spaces being assigned premium status is like rape, struck me as an argument that lacked the seriousness the topic deserved. Your reponse to my post was to demonstrate conclusively that you won’t discuss the topic in a mature and measured manner. Sounds childish to me.
Joey Glad-stoned (Danny tanners sucks) • Oct 15, 2007 at 10:52 pm
The problem is more emblematic and is becoming systematic across all society. More people, more cars, lower paying jobs, increased fees on everything associated with living in an urban environment—-you’re all morons——move close to campus—–get off your fat butts and bike or hike to school. The one person, one car centered society isn’t practical and unsustainable. Bus to school for god sake.
Joey Glad-stoned (Danny tanner • Oct 16, 2007 at 5:52 am
The problem is more emblematic and is becoming systematic across all society. More people, more cars, lower paying jobs, increased fees on everything associated with living in an urban environment—-you’re all morons——move close to campus—–get off your fat butts and bike or hike to school. The one person, one car centered society isn’t practical and unsustainable. Bus to school for god sake.
Jill Rucker to "gm" • Oct 15, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Who are you to judge a perfectly formidable opinion? Everyone deserves their say.
The Collegian blog allows for spontaneity, that is why the posts are here. The blog is not here to belittle each other̢۪s character (of which you know nothing of mine) or to cause discourse. The blog is open to discuss the issues students face each day on campus.
I have personally conducted a parking survey on-campus and know the numbers and costs involved. The students are being controlled, and the use of power is predominant here. “Rapeâ€Â has many meanings. Look it up in any thesaurus or dictionary. For example to rape the land for its resources, or the destructive, or abusive treatment of something (students having to incur more fees). I’m not blowing smoke.
Look it up in any thesaurus or dictionary.
-rape the land for its resources
-the destructive, or abusive treatment of something
You should rethink your opinion of me being “childishâ€Â, stick to the issues, and start taking your own personal inventory.
Jill Rucker to "gm" • Oct 16, 2007 at 1:15 am
Who are you to judge a perfectly formidable opinion? Everyone deserves their say.
The Collegian blog allows for spontaneity, that is why the posts are here. The blog is not here to belittle each other’s character (of which you know nothing of mine) or to cause discourse. The blog is open to discuss the issues students face each day on campus.
I have personally conducted a parking survey on-campus and know the numbers and costs involved. The students are being controlled, and the use of power is predominant here. “Rape” has many meanings. Look it up in any thesaurus or dictionary. For example to rape the land for its resources, or the destructive, or abusive treatment of something (students having to incur more fees). I’m not blowing smoke.
Look it up in any thesaurus or dictionary.
-rape the land for its resources
-the destructive, or abusive treatment of something
You should rethink your opinion of me being “childish”, stick to the issues, and start taking your own personal inventory.
gm • Oct 15, 2007 at 2:19 pm
While I agree that the idea behind premium parking spaces is ridiculous when we should be doing all we can to improve the parking situation on campus, we do need to keep a little perspective. To equate having a portion of the new spaces created offered at premium prices to rape is a childish and thoughtless choice of words. Also, please drop the “poor students who have no place to park” routine. I agree completely that we should improve the amount of parking and make it as convenient as possible for everyone. However, the new lot has not even been close to full, so how can we argue there is no parking? What you are really saying is that you can’t park as close as you want to. The article says as much calling it a lot of last resort. Finally, please remember that we all are going to have to pay for additional parking. When parking structures are built (which people seem to believe will magically solve all parking problems. Just wait until it takes you 20-30 minutes to get in or out of one) parking fees for everyone will escalate dramatically to pay for them. We all will be paying for premium parking, it just won’t be called that.
gm • Oct 15, 2007 at 9:19 pm
While I agree that the idea behind premium parking spaces is ridiculous when we should be doing all we can to improve the parking situation on campus, we do need to keep a little perspective. To equate having a portion of the new spaces created offered at premium prices to rape is a childish and thoughtless choice of words. Also, please drop the “poor students who have no place to park” routine. I agree completely that we should improve the amount of parking and make it as convenient as possible for everyone. However, the new lot has not even been close to full, so how can we argue there is no parking? What you are really saying is that you can’t park as close as you want to. The article says as much calling it a lot of last resort. Finally, please remember that we all are going to have to pay for additional parking. When parking structures are built (which people seem to believe will magically solve all parking problems. Just wait until it takes you 20-30 minutes to get in or out of one) parking fees for everyone will escalate dramatically to pay for them. We all will be paying for premium parking, it just won’t be called that.
Jill Rucker • Oct 15, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Now let me get this straight. We’ve waited umpteen months for more parking only to be told we have to pay for the spaces?
Whose money paid for the project in the first place? Oh, that’s right, it’s partially paid by Chevron. Go figure…another fat cat oil company exec. with the CSUF Board of Trustees made the decision to rape the poor students who have no place to park.
Jill Rucker • Oct 15, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Now let me get this straight. We’ve waited umpteen months for more parking only to be told we have to pay for the spaces?
Whose money paid for the project in the first place? Oh, that’s right, it’s partially paid by Chevron. Go figure…another fat cat oil company exec. with the CSUF Board of Trustees made the decision to rape the poor students who have no place to park.
Danny Tanner • Oct 15, 2007 at 11:06 am
It’s an outrage that with all the recent student complaints, the campus would allow a “premium reserved” faculty section.
Danny Tanner • Oct 15, 2007 at 6:06 pm
It’s an outrage that with all the recent student complaints, the campus would allow a “premium reserved” faculty section.