Several weeks ago, former Kansas University Chancellor Gene Budig was in Lawrence to deliver a lecture and autograph copies of his book, “A Game of Uncommon Skill,” published by the American Council of Education.

His lecture focused on experiences and reflections of his 23 years as a university chancellor or president, his time as president of professional baseball’s American League and his current position at Princeton University.

Budig covered many interesting topics, but there was one particular matter involving baseball that also is applicable to higher education and should be considered by KU and regents officials.

Budig noted the most important people attending a professional baseball game are those sitting in the less-costly bleacher seats, not the high-priced players on the field or the team owners. He said those in the bleachers, the young fans, represent the future of baseball. For that reason, baseball management must be careful not to increase ticket prices so much that they are too expensive for youngsters to attend the games.

The same reasoning could be applied to the current question of how much to raise tuition charges for those attending Kansas University and other regents schools. University officials don’t have to contend with how to pay the exorbitant salaries of professional baseball players, but they do have to figure out how to pay the constantly rising costs of running a university when the percentage of state fiscal aid for general expenses is dropping at an alarming rate.

Proposed tuition increase plans have been floated by university officials, ranging from a 69 percent increase to a 122 percent jump. These increases look big, and they are big, but it should be remembered any increase will be imposed during a five-year period.

What would such an increase do to enrollment? How many students would be priced out of an education at KU? The young people of Kansas, young high school graduates, represent the future of the state, just as the young people sitting in bleacher seats at baseball stadiums represent the future of professional baseball.

It appears there are few alternatives for university officials. They could, as has been done at the University of Wisconsin, place a moratorium on future enrollment; they could cut to the bone, or eliminate, services and lower the quality of education; they could reduce faculty and staff, as is the plan at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln; and they could initiate other policies that would be detrimental to the school and its mission.

KU alumni and friends have been extremely generous, but it is highly unlikely private fiscal support to the university through the Kansas University Endowment Association can match the level of state support being withdrawn.

Therefore, it appears students and their parents are going to be asked to pay a greater share of their university education. This being the case, it is imperative KU and Kansas State University officials announce their tuition increases at the same time.

This is not the time for one school to play public relations games to try to win favor with prospective and current students, their parents and state legislators by offering a substantially smaller tuition increase. Now is not the time for one school or the other to suggest to the public it is more concerned about the young people of Kansas having the opportunity of receiving a college education by holding down tuition costs more than the other school.

Just as baseball needs to take care of the young fans in the bleachers, our state university leaders must do what they can to assure the young people of Kansas they are not being priced out of a quality university education.

l

Are there any major trafficways in Lawrence, which, when originally designed and built, were too large? Are there any streets, trafficways or intersections today that are too large? Not likely.

Rather than being too large, history shows those designing and engineering Lawrence’s major trafficways, intersections and streets did not dream big enough. Likewise, they did not design and demand sufficiently wide setbacks along those streets.

Lawrence’s growth has exceeded most predictions, and consequently, keeping traffic moving at a reasonable and safe rate is becoming an increasingly challenging matter.

The past few weeks there has been considerable discussion about how wide or big to make an intersection at 31st and Iowa streets. Traffic projections call for substantial increases in the numbers of vehicles using this intersection in years to come. So why should there be so much debate on how to design the intersection?

Several years ago, well-intentioned city leaders and city officials worked hard on a plan called Horizon 2020 that tried to plan for the city’s needs when the year 2020 rolls around. For one reason or another, the crystal ball used by 2020 prognosticators wasn’t too clear. In many cases, numbers and needs projected for by 2020 already are here  and have been for some time.

Is this a case of poor vision? Or of highly irregular growth?

Whatever the case, it should cause city officials and interested residents to realize Lawrence is going to continue to grow, and demands on city services are going to explode.

The traffic on 23rd Street is a dangerous and terrible mess. Why? There are several reasons, but primarily city officials didn’t think big enough; they did not design a wider street; they allowed businesses to build too close to the street, thereby limiting future expansion of the roadway, and they allowed too many curb cuts.

This is all hindsight, but it seems lessons should be learned from these past oversights.

Twenty or 30 years from now, what situations in Lawrence are likely to be used as examples of 2002 city officials and residents not having the vision to foresee the future needs of the city?