I note with great interest the recent article by the Daily concerning the Recreation Renovation, now called the “Recreation Renovation and Expansion Project,” and the presentation of the design committee to the GSB. Given the changed economic circumstances that now pertain in this state and in this nation, coupled with the original rascality of the campaign in the first place, I think it is time to review the viability of the entire project and to have a new vote on it with a better sense of the money REALLY at stake here. Bear with me as I explain.

I think that Jacob Johnson, GSB senator for the off-campus constituency, was exactly right to question whether the project can be done for the cost advertised. The $52.9 million is, of course, $52.9 million, and, of course, that was the fatuous “explanation” that was danced in front of the good senator when he had the temerity to complain. What is going to change is the interest cost. Remember, this is a project paid for by bonds — the money is borrowed and repaid over 25 years. The biggest portion of the cost is not the principal, but rather the interest, and minor changes in the interest rate can move that cost up or down considerably.

Remember, as I go through this in somewhat more detail, that under the Iowa Code, the entire cost has to be imposed upon the fees paid by the student body to sink the principal and the interest over the cost of the project. In simpler terms, you did not vote for a $20/$20/$210 fee, no matter what was told at the time. You voted for whatever/whatever/whatever fee, to potentially unlimited amounts.

Given the general collapse of the credit markets, the prospect of paying very much more has moved from an academic possibility to a horrifying near-certainty.

I was skeptical of the proposition advanced in February that the university could borrow at its stated interest cost of approximately 5 percent, which was then the going rate for the best investment grade municipal or governmental tax-free bonds, so-called AAA rated bonds. Nevertheless, taking the most charitable explanation possible for the information given out during the renovation campaign, the university officials responsible for such calculations must have been firmly convinced at the time, even though the rating of this institution is borderline between AA and A, that this could be done. For the record, at the time the Recreation Renovation ballot was held, I understand that there were only three public universities in the United States with AAA bond ratings — Oklahoma State, Virginia and Texas.

The theory behind this belief must have been that because of the high rate of state income taxation, you could nearly always find some rich Iowan who was sufficiently attracted by the tax-free aspect of the interest to accept a AAA rate of return on a mediocre AA- bond. Given the downturn in the stock market, there are now lots and lots of capital losses available to offset capital gains, so I wonder if this explanation holds.

Even if it does hold, there remains another problem. The federal government, in its effort to pay for the financial institution bailout, has been moving heavily into the credit market in recent days. The interest rate — the price for money — is governed by supply and demand, the same as anything else. The federal demand has become sufficient that it is beginning to push the short term federal rate up. California has asked the federal government for money, as it cannot bond at any rate that it wishes to pay, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has given up trying to do so for the moment. The State of Ohio is able to do so, but at no less than 6 percent. Analysts can be seen on every business television program saying that investors are so gun-shy that they are not interested in valuation right at the moment — no matter how good it is, they don’t want it. .

In this environment, Iowa State’s little bond shouldn’t be that attractive. To place in the market, it is going to have to go at a higher interest rate, and you and your younger brothers and sisters, and children, are going to pay for that. If it moves at 6 percent, you will be paying more like a $25/$25/$250 fee, and if it moves at 7 percent, you will get something more like $30/$30/$300 fee when the dust settles.

The less charitable explanation, and the one I personally incline to, is that the university officials responsible proceeded with reckless indifference to the interest cost that would be imposed on the students. But let us leave that for another day.

There are other immediate considerations:

The City of Ames is, of course, building a new aquatic center right on the border of campus. As residents of Ames, you could use that, and probably at less cost than your increased student fees. Had the City of Ames and the university collaborated, they could have built something truly spectacular, but, of course, that would prevent empire-building in either of those two fine institutions. Nevertheless, it still may not be too late to do so.

Also, let us not forget that immediately after the spring semester ended, this state was subjected to intense storms and flooding that wrecked much of eastern Iowa. Many businesses remain closed, and many citizens remain troubled by housing problems. We, on the other hand, are going to continue with our little self-centered playground construction. The amount of money borrowed, if applied to the much more worthy project of civic reconstruction, would allow our state officials to leverage a half-billion dollars of federal flood relief money, while still leaving a couple of million to work on State Gym renovations.

But, of course, that would prevent us from having the immediate gratification, some years down the road, of a couple of hot tubs, and some air conditioning for those who use Lied Recreation Center during the summer.

So, in summary, here is a chance to kill a bad idea before it becomes a nightmarish reality, or a chance to look really good before the whole state: Contact the Regents, and contact your legislators and legislative candidates, and let them know what you think about the whole idea.

— Joseph Isenberg is a graduate student in history from Nevada