According to Proposition 1D, which passed during the Nov. 7 election with 56.5 percent of the votes, the 23 CSU campuses will now receive $690 million to repair and upgrade outdated college facilities, and build new classrooms to accommodate the growing student population.
The approximate $89 million funds that CSULB will receive from Proposition 1D will be used to renovate library equipment, replace Peterson Hall 3 with a new cost-effective building and construct new classrooms in the nursing building, according to the CSULB Web site.
The construction of a new Peterson Hall 3 science building will cost approximately $83 million, and building renovations will cost about $3.6 million. The addition to the nursing building and the library renovation will cost $2 million and $478,000, respectively, according to the CSULB Web site. The funds provided by Proposition 1D represent only 27 percent of CSULB’s capital needs in the next five years.
Billie Jo Stevens, a senior marine biology major, said she is a bit cynical about the effectiveness of Proposition 1D.
“Our buildings are old. The air conditioning doesn’t work and heating doesn’t work in the L.A. and science buildings,” she said.
Ben Brunharnkul, a business accounting major, said he is not impressed with the proposition passing.
“Let’s just hope it actually comes to this school,” he said.
Communications major Nick Arciniega added, “and not into the pockets of some corrupt government.”
Kristi Gohn, a senior journalism major, said she hopes “in the long run, we’ll get an upgraded campus. More money can’t be bad.”
CSULB President F. King Alexander, who supported Proposition 1D and opposed Proposition 90, addressed the Associated Student Senate Wednesday, stating that “many of our science programs will have better facilities to learn in.”
Elena Macias, assistant vice president of the CSULB Office of Governmental and Community Relations, said she is “delighted that Proposition 1D passed and Proposition 90 did not.”
According to the 2006 Voter Information Guide, if Proposition 90 had passed, it would have allowed landowners to seek damages in eminent domain cases and would also allow owners to evade fair market value constraints by charging the highest price assessed on the open market.
He also talked about the CSU’s victory in a failed Proposition 90, stating that “a leaseholder could hold the university hostage for two or three times what the value of the property might be worth.”
Macias agreed with Alexander.
“Land acquired by the universities is normally bought at fair market value,” Macias said. “If 90 had passed, an owner could have tried to get more out of the buyer than the land is worth.”
