Seems not.

The University has no obligation whatever to provide any form of transportation for anyone connected with it. It’s a university, not a bus company. Most of UC’s problems, in fact, stem from people’s unwillingness to recognize that its mission is *only* to teach and research, and that those activities are the only ones that deserve funding as of right. Everything else (yes, including housing, dining commons, RSF, student life activities) is a luxury, which people can pay for if they want, but which they have no right to expect to be provided, least of all for free.

What has not been discussed is why the University is asking for students to pay for an increase. In late 2004 the administration decided to redirect money that had been used to pay for the campus shuttle system to build more parking spaces.

While it is important that the campus has a reasonable supply of parking, it should not come at the expense of students. UC has an obligation to provide different options of transportation for its entire population, not just staff, and it has policies that dictate this.

So some student leaders were upset over this increase to nearly $ 6. Therefore, we advocated for a delay on the vote so we could negotiate. I stepped back from the ASUC, and I was suprised to discover that the Bear Transit contribution is now $ 8.10 per student per semester.

This is a substantial increase from what was initially proposed. Also, the AC Transit fee is higher than before, and it could have been lower. I do think the problem is with UC’s portion of the fee not necessarily AC Transit’s.

While some improvements are being proposed in the referendum such as shared integration of LBNL/UC shuttles, this was in the works for a while and was a policy in the campus Long Range Development Plan.

Overall, its not a good proposal. It could have been better, and if students vote NO we can get a better, more equitable deal and keep this important program.