The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current, March 07, 2000, Page 4, Image 4

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

Cash cow
corn husking
Proposed ethanol bill
stops short of state support
Ed Schrock must not drive a very old car.
If he did, he probably wouldn’t have introduced
LB 1234.
The bill requires gasoline sold in the state to contain a
certain percentage of ethanol (something that those ’70s
and ’80s cars don’t seem to digest that well). Two percent of
nearly all gas would need to be a renewable fuel - most like
ly ethanol - in 2001, and that percentage would increase in
the years following. High-octane gas and aircraft fuel
wouldn’t be covered under this proposed law; we’re talking
about the gas that most people use in their cars and trucks.
, Schrock’s bill is basically
Schrock s bill from Gov. Johanns’ office. It’s
. j . something that he and his agri
IS bCISICCllly culture friends came up with to
r ■ help out farmers (more ethanol
jrOTn kJOV. equals more grain, equals more
fnhnnnv ’ cash for farmers).
The problem is, outside of
office It S Johanns and these farmers, no
*'•' ' one supports the bill.
something that Western Nebraskans don’t
j want it, because they don’t have
lie atia his many farms that will be benefit
. 7 from the bill. Ranchers in the
agriculture state simply don’t have much
friends came use *er “astern city folk don,
up with to help want t0 w Prices anv h|8her
out farmers. cringe at currently.
Truckers and other out-of
state travelers won’t want to
encounter any ethanol requirements when they fill up at
Nebraska pumps!
So if urbanites, hicks, non-Nebraskans and everybody
who drives old cars don’t want to be required to use ethanol
- why pass a bill like this?
Maybe the Legislators just want a governmental man
date. In Nebraska, any state requirement on the private sec
tor wouldn’t normally go over very well, but this could be
Philosophically, this state has been reasonably strong
against mandates. If we’re going to set a mandate, let’s
make it an important one that most people can agree on.
Perhaps we should start down the slippery slope of
required percentages and mandated numbers.
We think not.
Editorial Board
Josh Funk (editor) • J.J. Harder • Cliff Hicks • Samuel
McKewon • Dane Stickney • Kimberly Sweet • Lindsay
Letter Policy
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief letters to the editor
and guest columns, but does not guarantee their publication.
The Daily Nebraskan retains the right to edit or reject any
submissions.Submitted material becomes property of the
Daily Nebraskan and cannot be returned. Anonymous mate
rial will not be published. Those who submit letters must
identify themselves by name, year in school, major and/or
group affiliation, if any.
Submit material to: Daily Nebraskan, 20 Nebraska Union,
1400 R St., Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448 or e-mail to: let
Editorial Policy
Unsigned editorials are the opinions of the spring 2000
Daily Nebraskan. They do not necessarily reflect the views
of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, its employees, its
student body or the University of Nebraska Board of
Regents. A column is solely the opinion of its author. The
Board of Regents acts as publisher of the Daily Nebraskan;
policy is set by the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. The
UNL Publications Board, established by the regents, super
vises the publication of the paper. According to policy set by
the regents, responsibility for the editorial content of the
newspaper lies solely in the hands of its student employees.
The Daily Nebraskan strives to print fair and accurate cover
age; any corrections or clarifications will be printed on page
TOpA'/ is
SUPER Tuesday/
W__/\ Um IP TH£y W£R£
Letters^ to the
From my interaction with the
remaining presidential candidates,
one is telling the whole story; one has
been honest and dedicated; one has
led with integrity and ethics and it is
that one that I will be voting for
tomorrow. I will be voting for Joel
A-Team wants to get people
involved and make ASUN an organi
zation that is for the students and will
not keep the status quo we have seen
year after year.
From the onset, A-Team has set
out to create change, and it has done
just that. Party members have already
involved people who normally would
not have been involved, and I have
faith that once in office, they will
continue to do just that. A-Team and
its candidates are this year’s best
chance for the students of next year to
see a difference in ASUN.
So when entering the polls, think
about your options and choose a party
that already has started doing what it
said it would. Vote A-Team!
John Conley
Impact presidential candidate
Parking woes
After reading the “Parking fees
may increase” article (DN, March 6),
several questions came to mind, one
of which was simply, “Why the heck
did they use ‘may’ instead of ‘will’?”
The rest of my questions are
aimed more toward the members of
the Parking Advisory Committee,
and more specifically the eight mem
bers who voted to recommend the
new plan.
The goal of this new plan was to
keep parking fees low by increasing
rates on reserved stalls and using
other sources of funding.
According to PAC member Tom
Myers the plan would include “creat
ing premium parking spots and sock
ing it to those who want those spots.”
The PAC also sought to keep
prices down for people who were
open to parking flexibility.
“We want to keep the prices low
for those who want to park but don’t
care if it’s the other end of the lot” is
how PAC Chairman James Specht put
This new plan may have been
conceived with these ideas ip mind,
but the realization has fallen far short
of such lofty goals. When comparing
the increases between different per
mits, the article listed dollar amounts
rather than percentage increases.
The proposed plan offers the fol
lowing increases in parking permit
prices: premium reserved faculty, 75
percent; other reserved faculty, 37
percent; non-reserved faculty, 23 per
cent; reserved student, 43 percent;
non-reserved student, 31 percent and
perimeter, 60 percent. Note that the
perimeter lot increase is second in
percentage only to the premium
reserved faculty permits. Who are we
socking it to here?
The administration’s proposed
plan, rejected by the PAC, contained
the following increases: reserved fac
ulty, 25 percent; non-reserved facul
ty, 35 percent; reserved student, 29
percent; non-reserved student, 31
percent and perimeter, 20 percent.
The PAC simply took administra
tion’s proposal, created a new catego
ry (premium reserved faculty) and
then did some very interesting
manipulations of the proposed
increases. It decided that the premi
um reserved faculty, as well as the
perimeter permits, deserved three
times the proposed increase.
The other reserved faculty and
reserved student permits needed one
and a half times what the administra
tion proposed. Non-reserved student
permits will be increased exactly as
the administration wanted, while
non-reserved faculty get a one-third
reduction in the proposed increases.
The only winners I see in this propos
al are the non-reserved faculty and
the parking services’ pockets.
While the PAC proposal does
“sock it to” those who purchase
reserve permits, it also takes a pretty
good swing at almost everyone else,
especially anyone buying a perimeter
Why did the PAC feel it needed to
add onto administration’s proposed
increases for nearly every category of
permit? What happened to keeping
the prices low for those who want to
park but are open to flexibility? It is
hardly rewarding the people willing
to park in the perimeter lots by mak
ing their permits suffer a percentage
increase second only to a currently
nonexistent category of “premium”
stalls in the faculty lots with the high
est demand.
Parking problems at UNL will be
with us forever, but this latest attempt
at addressing the issues is a far cry
from anything beneficial.
Tom Myers, the lone opponent to
the plan, was right when he said rec
ommending it would force the com
mittee to accept blame for the fee
increase. Get ready PAC, you’ve got
plenty of blame heading your way ...
accept it.
Tim James
graduate student
electrical engineering
More power to Schafer
Heath Mello, Empower, is cur
rently a senator supposedly repre
senting the students in the College of
Arts and Sciences. Mr. Mello voted
not once, but twice in favor of lobby
ing against LB 1405 on behalf of the
student body regardless of what his
constituents had asked for.
As a member of the College of
Arts and Sciences, I personally con
tacted Mr. Mello and asked that he
vote to remain neutral, as did other
members of our college.
Unfortunately, he did not feel that our
voices and our concerns mattered
when he voted both times in favor of
lobbying against LB 1405.
Joel Schafer, A-Team candidate,
is not a current member of the ASUN,
but after speaking with him, I hope
that he does become one. Mr. Schafer
does not deliver the same “flowery
speech” when he speaks of his con
cerns and ideas for our campus. And
although we have not been able to see
how Mr. Schafer would have voted in
the above-mentioned issue, having
discussed this issue with him, I have
no doubt that he would not have
ignored his constituents as did Mr.
Mello on two occasions.
Through Heath Mello’s position
in the ASUN, we have been able to
see how he “represents” his con
stituents. To enable our voices to be
heard and represented accordingly by
our student government, let’s not
make the mistake of allowing Heath
Mello to become the next president of
the ASUN. Instead, we as students
need to assume an active role in our
student government and vote for the
candidate whose concerns are listen
ing to and actively involving the stu
dents in issues here on campus.
This is why I am encouraging all
students to vote for A-Team and Joel
Schafer this Wednesday. The ASUN
is meant to represent us, the students,
and it is our duty to ensure that it does
Sara L. Fiedler
English, psychology