Comments about ‘Dorm's leaky pipes force SUU students to find new housing’

An absolute disaster. SUU knew of this problem a long time ago and chose to ignore it in hopes of raking in more money. College is hard enough on kids without making them live in a cramped rundown rathole of a building.

Funny how us taxpayers on a budget fix our house when something goes wrong but government officials not on a budget just want to tear it down and rebuild it telling us that it would be cheaper. If you believe that, then the next time you need to replace your furnace or water heater call and get a quote to fix them then call a builder and see if it is cheaper to just rebuild your house. Maybe we can all tell the county not to send us a property tax notice because our house is old.

I had the opportunity while being a student at SUU to work with SUU Administrators and SUU Housing Adminstrators and I can honestly say they would never let students live somewhere if they knew it was unsafe. SUU Adminstrators are extrememly student focused. This article failed to mention that last Thursday is when they noticed something was wrong, they brought in experts to see what was wrong on Saturday, and took one day to make a plan before telling residents on Sunday. Had this information been reported by Deseret News, which was available to them in a press release on SUU's website, the article would have shown a more balanced look at the situation.
That being said Juniper Hall may be old but I lived there as a Freshman and it was one of the best experiences I had in college. It is an experience that can't be described and I'm sad students will no longer have it.

First his name wasn't on the list of University Presidents that didn't accept a raise this year, then he let 227 students get kicked out of their homes.

That's two black eyes for President Benson (the first one wasn't that big of a deal, but this second one is a HUGE mistake.)

@rmk- replacing a half-million dollar heating system is very different than home repairs. Juniper was already facing demolition in the next 5 years. They were wise not to spend that money.

@Emily, I didn't think article made SUU Housing look bad. If anything, I'm impressed that they plan on having all the students taken care of by the end of the week.

I loved my time at Juniper too, but that was because of the people, not because of the building. Don't get the two confused. The building itself was always a disappointment, I was embarrassed when my friends from other schools came and visited (and most of them lived in the old BYU dorms that were demolished 3 or 4 years ago!)

I'm wondering whose fault this is. I don't know enough about school budgets and where money comes from and how its directed, but I have two thoughts I want to express. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

When President Benson first came to SUU he started talking about building a clock tower and expanding the science building. Everyone talked about how great he was at raising money. Then he hired Roger Reid and started talking about making SUU's football team good. The next week Coach Reid brought in $50,000 for the basketball team. Now the football team has been accepted to the Big Sky. President Benson has done some great things to encourage growth, how did this ball get dropped?

When President Benson introduced Senator Bennett at 2010's graduation ceremony, he said that SUU has never had a better friend. Senator Bennett understood how to use earmarks to secure funds for our universities. SUU grew because of Bob Bennett. Senator Mike Lee and the caucus going Tea Party members hate earmarks and ditched Bennett. What role does the senator play in this? (I'm stretching here, even if he used earmarks I doubt Lee could have saved Juniper.)

rmk | 2:29 p.m. Nov. 1, 2011
Nice sarcasm, but you obviously didn't read the article. The pipes are encased in concrete throughout the building. To fix it they would need to open up all the walls and replace all the pipes. In a cinder block contructed building like Juniper that would likely case a structural integrity issue. I can see how it is likely to be much more expensive to do that than just tear it down and start over.
You also have to look at the benefits of the 2 plans. Repairs would still leave you with a 50 year old building, potential future problems and the need to replace it sooner. A new building would allow for major improvements, modern power and water, modern safety designs, a building design more suited to current needs, ... the list goes on.