Editor:

I would just like to respond to Clayton Norlen’s Feb. 2 column, “Save the rec center.”

I think the Legislature finally did something right. They turned down an unnecessary amount of money. They were right in not allowing the university to waste more money on something that definitely doesn’t need to be built. I can think of some other excellent places that money could go to and be of good use.

For instance, the Chemistry building, and also the Social and Behavioral Sciences Building.

If students really wanted to work out, they would plan accordingly and work around the team schedule and classes. Why do we continue to compare ourselves with other campuses around the globe? We are the U, situated in the state of Utah, and we need to acknowledge that this valley is not a giant metropolis like some other college towns.

I’d like to touch base on Norlen’s comment “(the rec center) offers students a community environment, which this university is hurting for.”

Guess what-if you have not noticed, we live in one of the biggest states and our lives are spread throughout this entire state. So we are going to continue to commute and travel and come to school for exactly that-school.

I am pretty sure that UCLA or UConn or some other big school in a highly populated area does not have the “community” you all are looking for, either. If you want that type of community, I believe you need to go to a secluded place like Logan or Price, where there is nothing around except for the school. Then your idea of a community will become a reality.

Peter StokerSophomore, Undecided