The opt-out clause makes the fund more equitable. In the end, the opt-out clause was included in the question as a result of an administrative error and an impending deadline that prevented its correction. It's not addressing the problem of lack of funding at its root. And I haven't been convinced, by SSMU politicians or by the media, that there is no other way of finding the money for these needs. SSMU should never have proposed this.
Painter defends the spirit of the fund as being socially responsible.
At some point, you have to take matters into your own hands.