Since that time, the housing market collapsed, the banks went bust, unemployment reached historical levels, and now we’re looking at huge budget shortfalls in higher education.

Missouri’s higher education commissioner warned of potential 15-to-20 percent budget cuts to state universities, possibly leading to university closures, larger class sizes and even elimination of athletic teams.

And yet, we are still chugging along about to build a superfluous facility that the majority of students will probably never use and which will cost untold amounts in the future to properly staff and maintain.

Worse yet, those who actually need it the most – athletic teams – are specifically being barred from using the facility.

The times where we could afford to lounge down the lazy river are over.

Sure, it would be nice to have another pool, an indoor track, a rock climbing wall, more basketball courts, more gym equipment, and, of course, a lazy river.

The good folks in Campus Recreation have done a phenomenal job helping plan and design this project. It looks like a beautiful building with lots of great features.

But not here and not now.

Not in these economic conditions.

This project should be re-evaluated immediately. We should not be stuck constructing a building just because students four years ago voted to approve the project. It might have made sense then, but certainly not now.

Let students vote whether they think this is a good idea going forward given the current economic situation.

Student fees already paid into this project could be diverted to other, more vital projects, or perhaps just held in a fund. When economic conditions and higher education budgets improve, this idea is certainly still worthy of consideration.

Now, though, is not the time.

-Zach Becker

For the Editorial Board

If you are against construction of the University Recreation Center, join our Facebook group, “MSU Students Against Construction of the University Recreation Center.”

Like a lot of people in Springfield, I watched last night’s Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. The episode featured the total destruction of a local family’s run-down 800 square-foot home and the construction of a brand new 3,300 square-foot home. The eight-person Hampton family seemed worthy and appreciative of the very generous gift and I am happy for them.

However, I still have the same problems with this show that I always have. Extreme Makeover is one of those feelgood programs that demonstrate, in true American fashion, that if you are a good person eventually you will be rewarded by winning the lottery and getting lots and lots of stuff (and be famous for it). Of course, you don’t have to buy tickets to this lottery. Instead, ABC execs select the biggest sob-stories out of a large bag of tears. Winner gets  a new house filled with expensive stuff and sometimes even a free car. 

Extreme Makeover makes itself out to be this ultimate charity designed to help the masses of misfortunate struggling people. However, while it tugs at the heartstrings, its real aim are the purse strings. This show has more product placement than the movie Mac and Me. These companies are not trying to help people; they are just trying to pad their bottom line. Granted, I don’t blame them for it, as I’m sure it is effective. I bet the local builder from the latest episode sees a boom in business. Still, the show works hard to be a tear-jerker and make ABC, host Ty Pennington, and the sponsors look like philanthropists, which they are not.

Once the whirl-wind of publicity goes by and the dust settles on these families, how much better off are they? ABC certainly doesn’t help the parents get a better education or learn new job skills. These people are usually low wage earners and are now stuck paying the utility bills and maintenance costs on a home triple the size they had before. Obviously, taxes go up on the property big time, too. (In fairness, according to reports, the show helps families with some of this expense by either outright donation or by helping the family exploit tax loopholes to avoid some of the taxes on their remodeled property).

The bottom line is, though, that you are taking a family and creating a living environment that is well beyond their means. While good at first, unforeseen consequences can arise and families may be left in a lurch and possibly lose that fancy new home. And what about the neighbors? These poor folks now have a mansion in the middle of their rundown neighborhood. The mansion among shacks distorts the property values for everyone in the area.

With all the money ABC spends on these fancy mansions, they could instead easily spend the same amount and create  livable conditions for a whole neighborhood of people. Maybe they could create homes for homeless people, building small, one room apartments that could house hundreds who don’t have a place to live.

The show is just wasteful, too. The old Hampton house they dynamited last night, while far from luxurious, certainly would have made a decent home for a family of two or three. I’ve seen homes in Springfield in much worse conditions than that one.

Extreme Makeover shows us the true American dream. If you wait around and hope enough, eventually some all-powerful entity will bail you out and give you lots and lots of stuff and maybe a big house.

Stuff equals happiness, right? Judging by the euphoric and tear-filled reaction of most Extreme Makeover winners, I guess the answer is a resounding, “OH MY GOD!!! OH MY GOD!!! YES!!”

She pauses, reflects, and smiles. Director of Campus Recreation Cindi Barnett’s dream is close to becoming a reality.

It started as mere speculative conversation between her and some of the student workers in Campus Recreation six years ago and, through years of dedication, she has helped it materialize into the roughly $23 million and over 90,000 square feet University Recreation Center set to break ground next semester.

The facility, which will be located near JQH Arena where tennis courts now stand, will have an indoor jogging track, basketball courts, multipurpose rooms, a fitness center, a swimming pool, locker rooms, and a climbing wall, among other features.

“It’s just real exciting for me,” said Barnett, her passion and enthusiasm for the project evident in her voice. “Being in on all the planning; thinking about what do we want, where we want it in the building.”

However, she is most excited for the students of Missouri State.

“More than anything, I think the students are going to embrace it,” she said. “Obviously, we have recreation all over the campus, but we don’t have a central place for students. It’s kind of the next step as far as Campus Recreation goes.

“Once it opens, the students will be going, ‘Yeah, we needed this. This is Missouri State.’”

Growing Campus Recreation from its origins in a small, nondescript office in Plaster Student Union, Barnett takes great pride in the myriad of services her department now provides and the new facility it will soon call home.

“Campus Rec used to be a very, very little tiny room,” she said. “Nobody knew it was there; didn’t even have a sign on the wall. The only activity that we did for students at that time recreation-wise was fraternity intramurals. We have all kinds of things for students to do now.”

Today, Campus Recreation provides countless activities for students, in everything from intramural basketball to Kung Fu to ballroom dance to hiking.

Through it all, Barnett has kept Campus Recreation focused on its customers, the students.

From the initial planning stages of the University Recreation Center, student input has dictated which features will and will not be included.

“We’ve had to pick and choose,” Barnett said. “We went to the students and said, ‘You tell us.’”

Through surveys and presentations to focus groups, students showed strong support for a state-of-the-art recreation center and showed they were willing to pay for the new facility through the passage of a student fee referendum in Fall 2006.

The project was originally slated as an estimated $16.5 million renovation of McDonald Arena. However, state budget cuts forced a change of plans. Given students had already began to pay the student fee in Fall 2007 for the promised University Recreation Center, plans for an all-new facility were developed instead.

The construction project should take about 18 months, giving the facility a projected opening for Fall 2011.

Students who graduate before the completion of the University Recreation Center will be allowed to come back and use the facility for a time equal to the number of semesters they paid into the building’s student fee.