Note from the Editor: This article was originally published on April 16, 2004. The Carletonian is 138 years old, with over 3,500 issues published since its inception. To reflect and learn from the newspaper’s substantial history, pieces from the archive that have particular relevance to current events will be republished. 

It  is my regret  to  inform  you, if you have not  already heard,  that the   CSA   senate   on Monday voted  not  to fund  construction  of a  swing  set  on   campus  at   this time.   Now  I  know that the  vast majority of  you already support the notion  that  CSA  should  fund this  endeavor, so this  article  is somewhat unnecessary. 

However,there  are  some minds that  still  need  to  be  swayed,  and some  others  that   are  not   even aware  of  the  issue. These  rea-sons, combined   with   the   fact that  the  viewpoint  section  was in need  of  a  lengthy  submission  to fill  this  space,   have   compelled me  to write  this  article.

 First, some  background. We requested that CSA provide $5,376.00  for  construction  of  a swing  set. The chart  shows  the breakdown of  costs.  The  money would   come   from   the   CSA’s capital reserve account, which has a current   balance   of   over $70,000. 

The swing  set  would  have  four swings  and  be  12  feet  high.   The supports   would   be  anchored in concrete. The  College’s  facilities department  would  conduct  most of  the   installation, and   they have  also  agreed  to  perform  reg-ular  maintenance  on  the  swing set.    The maintenance costs, which  would  include  replenish-ing  the  sand  and  checking  the integrity  of  the parts, would  be paid  for  by  CSA.   The   facilities department   has   estimated   that these costs would be at most $100  annually. The   swing   set   comes   with either  a  15-year  warranty or a lifetime warranty. There  is some confusion on  which, but I’m checking  on  it.

 The  swing  set  would  be  constructed  behind  the  LDC  on  the west  side  of  Upper  Lyman  Lake where  there  is  now  just  a  flat, open   grassy  area. The   College has  said  that  if a swing set  will be built,  that  is the  spot  it  will be. 

The  College’s  risk  and  liability officer   has   confirmed   that   the swing   set   would   be   covered under  our  current  insurance  pol-icy. Now that  senate has  voted  not to   fund   construction, we are moving  towards  placing  a  refer-endum   on   the   spring  ballot   so that  students   can   vote  on   the issue  directly.  Obviously  I would urge  you  to  vote  in  favor  of  the swing  set  when  it  comes  up  on the   referendum.    For   those   of you  who  still  need  convincing, below  is a  list  of  some  frequently raised  objections   and   questions along  with  my  answers  to  them.

“Isn’t   there   a swing set  like two  blocks away at the middle school?”

 Indeed  there is. However, the  swing set  at the  middle school  is only 8 feet  tall,  and  is really  not   satisfying for adult- sized  swingers.   Our  swing set  would  be  12  feet  tall,  which means  that    even very tall swingers would enjoy it. Furthermore, depending on where you live, the middle school  can  be quite  a walk.  Our swing   set   would   be   closer   to every  dorm  on  campus  with  the exception  of  Musser  and  maybeDavis.

“Aren’t there better things we could spend  our  money on?”

 Probably.   But  the  only  other thing  currently  on  the  table  that would  be  paid  for  out  of the cap-ital  reserve  fund   is  a  Gator   for the  athletic  department.   Even  if you’d  rather  have  a Gator,  CSA can  easily  buy  both  (the  Gator costs  $6,400  if  I’m  not  mistaken) . 

“Doesn’t    the   proposed   location interfere    with    the   frisbee    golf course?”

 Terry  Rivers  and  I  inspected the  site,  and  it  seems  like  it  will be  possible  to  place  the  swing set where  it  will  not  interfere.   We will  certainly   request   that   the swing  set  be  constructed  out  of the  way  of the  course.  Even  if it were  an  obstacle,   it  would  not be  any  worse  than   a  tree  or  a lake,   which  frisbee  golfers  cur-rently  have  to  deal  with. 

“All  that  sand  and  timber  sure is expensive. Do  we  really need it?”

 I’m   afraid   so.   The  sand   is  a safety  issue,   and  the  size  of  the sand    area    will    conform to (slightly   exceed) the   recom-mendations   of   the Consumer Product    Safety    Commission. The    facilities department is insisting  on-the timber,border, which  makes  maintenance  easi~er, keeps the sand where   it’s supposed  to be, keeps  the  area looking   neat, etc. The sand volleyball court doesn’t have one and apparently the   edge between  the  sand and  the  grass isn’t  holding  up too well.

 “I have  an  idea. Why   don’t we hold a contest to have students design and  build a really cool swing set  instead of  this 1 ordinary,run-of-the-mill swing  set?”

 According to one college authority,  this idea  has  a “snow-ball’s  chance  in  the  3rd  or  4th level  of hell”  of getting  approved by the insurance company. Using volunteer student labor  to reduce  installation   costs  is  also unlikely  to  receive  approval. 

“I want  a  sauna/trampoline /ham-mock. Why don’t we get that instead?”

 Unless you wanted the sauna/ trampoline/ hammock   to be  on  the  west  shore  of  Upper Lyman  Lake (actually, even  if you  did), there is  probably  no reason  we can’t  have both.  More importantly, you   lazy   bums need   to   put   a Proposal together       and bring      it to CSA.  You have my  support.