I normally don’t just come out and say things about the words written in these pages unless those words were written by me, but in this issue of the Chronicle is an editorial by Sara Kay “Car Tax for Student Drivers Unfair to Univ. Vehicle Owners.” In this sharply-worded critique, Kay railed against the failed ballot, using almost comically exaggerated language, going as far as to exclaim, “A car tax? $25? What am I, made of money?” before actually writing this gem: “The university’s tuition is high enough, leaving me with barely enough money to buy a slurpee [sic] at the 7-Eleven, how is it fair to make me shell out make me shell out an additional $25 to do something that i already am doing for free”.

I mean, I’ve heard some ridiculous arguments in my time, but the argument that the University shouldn’t charge students for parking because they may not be able to afford Slurpees may take the cake.

Of course, that isn’t her argument, but it might as well be. Now, I am not some annoying environmentalist hippie, so I am not in favor of putting a tax on cars to help pay to make a greener Hofstra, which is at least a little unfair to car owners, as such an initiative would benefit “free riders” (those that don’t pay the tax, as in people that don’t have cars), and in fact, royally screws commuters, who would see almost no benefit from the improvements that one would assume would take place only on the residential side of campus. But, that’s not the part of the equation that Kay and most of those opposed to the referendum had a problem with. It was this ridiculous idea that because they had never paid for parking previously, they shouldn’t have to now.

Before we start down this path, let me establish now that although I do not have a car (or even a license, for that matter), I would be the first in line to pay a $25 fee to park on campus. Now, those out there in Chronicleland are probably wondering why I would be willing to pay to park, when the old system had us parking for free. For me, there are several reasons that I see it of the utmost importance that a program like the one suggested in the referendum be implemented whether it was voted down by students either too ignorant or ill-informed to see the benefit of such a program.

First, the program would most likely be an opt-in system, which, in this case, would mean that if you didn’t want to pay the “tax” — or what it should have been seen as, and actually was called, a vehicle registration fee — you don’t park on campus. This doesn’t mean you can’t bring your car here, it just simply means you would have to park somewhere not owned by the University, perhaps on Hempstead Turnpike or Oak Street, or maybe even the parking lots in front of Stop N’ Shop or the Planned Parenthood.

Oh, what’s that you say?

You don’t want to park that far away from campus in a notoriously unsafe neighborhood? You’d rather park in a fenced-in area where they actually pay people to make sure that random strangers don’t break into your car to steal your personal belongings, or worse, steal the car and sell it for parts? Crazy. Well, if that’s the case, maybe you should also being paying for the service like very other school on earth.

Well, actually, that assessment isn’t entirely fair, as after some serious due diligence by yours truly, it appears that only about 95% of every school on earth charges for parking. From institutions such as Duke and Villanova to schools like Long Island’s own St. Joseph’s College — with a student body made entirely of commuters — all have to pay for parking. Not only that, almost every school paid significantly more — with one exception, Siena College (a private institution located outside of Albany), which charged only 20 dollars for a parking permit on campus — with some, such as Pennsylvania’s Duquesne University, raking their students over the coals. To give you the idea of the egregiousness of the rates of some schools, Duquesne boasts a robust menu of options for parking permits for their student car owners, the LEAST of which costs $300 — 12 times the price suggested in the referendum.

And what do you think that those students are willing to pay for parking? Because they get something in return. In fact, they get several things, not just security. At most schools, parking permit fees go not only to parking lot security, but upkeep of university roads and parking structures, something that our campus is in desperate need of.

And on top of all this, if we were to pay for parking, instead of simply just using the university’s space for free — and the argument that paying tuition counts as paying for parking is ludicrous (it’s roughly equivalent to saying you should because you pay taxes, you should be able to park in the Grand Canyon, because, hot damn, your taxes help “pay” for its upkeep) — it would give us the right to push for reforms and improvements, as we would actually be paying for such changes in a very direct manner, essentially giving a “right” to complain about the state of Hofstra roads and parking lots. This, as well as increased vigilance to prevent not only those who would use the parking areas without permits (we’ve all seen those cars on campus conspicuously absent the trademark “C” and “R” stickers on their bumpers) but those that would look to steal and vandalize.

Ultimately, the arguments made by Kay — who I am sure is a lovely person, and it is not my intention to defame her character — and others highlights not only the problems with the average Hofstra student’s perception of the reality of college campuses, as well as the perceived selfishness that is often associated with student on this campus. Slurpees aside, instead of thinking how an initiative on campus may put you in a bad way, perhaps the school would be better served by a concerted effort by all to think about how such things can benefit the campus as whole, a realization that there is a Hofstra community that can be improved by initiatives such as the one that failed on Election Day.

Nick Bond is a senior political science student. You may e-mail him at [email protected]