Priorities in paving lots, perhaps misguided

Andrew Flavahan and Andrew Flavahan

As I was driving last week I noticed that the lot in front of the new athletic building is being paved. To me, it’s obvious that this is a serious misallocation of University funds.

That lot was in fine condition, compared to other lots on campus, it was probably one of the better ones. So the question is: Why would the University pay money to pave it?

If they had enough money to pave a lot, I can think of a few off the top of my head that could have used it a great deal more than that one.

Lot 12 is a pothole-ridden mess of a place, anyone with a blue parking pass knows what I’m talking about. It’s not exactly a secret.

The Lot 6 overflow is in such bad shape it’s actually costing me money. Just last week I had to pay a fortune to remove stones and gravel from my brakes, and the only gravel I ever drive over is the gravel in the Lot 6 overflow. Covering the ground with loose stones (some of these stones are the size of baseballs) and gravel is not a suitable substitution for paving that lot. All those stones are also going to make breaking into a car even more tempting than it already is for criminals; maybe this has something to do with the ridiculous number of burglaries in this lot. They wouldn’t even have to pave the entire overflow; half of it is never used except for events like the recent RV Show. In the meantime, cars could park in the empty fields surrounding the stadium.

There are many more lots that I could put here as well, the commuter lot nearest Lot 12 for example.

Any way you look at it, the University has made a mistake and I think they owe it to the students to pave lots that actually need it. They’ve got all the equipment on campus anyway, so why not?

Flavahan is a senior majoring in scientific and technical communication. Send responses to his column to [email protected]