Find us on Facebook
Follow us on TwitterLynchburg planners give Liberty University expansion plans OK
Lynchburg Planning Commission narrowly approved Liberty University’s expansion plans Wednesday after making numerous changes to the proposal.
“I’ve lost a lot of sleep over this,” Chairwoman Laura Hamilton said just before the vote. “But I think the compromise we’ve come to is one that’s positive for the city.”
A dozen or so revisions were made to the LU package that afternoon to satisfy concerns from both city and school officials.
LU is seeking approval of a new master plan that prepares it to reach 15,000 students within five years. Officials expect to be at 11,000 by the start of next fall’s semester.
The plan they brought forward calls for building out along the base of Candlers Mountain. Lynchburg leaders are being asked to rezone 237 acres there to accommodate the expansion.
The planning commission passed both the master plan and the rezoning on a 3-2 vote with two members absent. Their recommendation will be forwarded to City Council, which has final say over the matter.
Commissioners Rick Barnes and Gerry Swienton dissented, saying the proposal wasn’t crafted according to sound planning philosophy.
Barnes had expressed concern early in the process about plans to build dorms along Candlers Mountain away from the main campus and all the academic buildings.
“There are a lot of things I can support in this plan,” he said Wednesday. “But, overall, I don’t think it reflects the best principles of campus planning.”
Swienton echoed those sentiments, tacking on further concerns about traffic and environmental impact.
“I really feel we’re making this decision, not on best planning principles, but on a fall enrollment deadline, and that concerns me,” he said.
Commissioners Ted Hannon and Sharon Oglesby joined Hamilton in approving the expansion plans.
LU officials said afterward they were pleased with the decision and felt a mutually beneficial plan had been arrived at.
“At the end of the day, we came up with a plan that’s good for the city and good for the university,” said director of auxiliary services Lee Beaumont. “… We compromised and worked together.”
LU objected to some of the original conditions proposed by city planning staffers. The biggest sticking point was a suggestion that the school be required to offset any waterway damage inflicted during construction by making equivalent improvements somewhere within the same watershed.
That caveat was changed Wednesday from a requirement to a recommendation. LU officials said they’ll make improvements locally whenever possible and added their preliminary plans have been positively reviewed by state environmental officials.
Lynchburg did not have the authority to compel the university to comply with its request.
Other alterations made to the terms attached to LU’s plans include:
- Changing the timetable on all traffic improvements at LU’s request so projects are tied to specific enrollment targets rather than calendar dates.
- Making it clear the city will partner with the school to construct three pedestrian crossings once it hits 12,000 students, which will likely be around fall 2009. City officials sought that change following some discussion on who would foot the bill.
- Adding a provision that requires new traffic lights and a turn lane to be installed at the crossing of Wards Road and Harvard Street once LU builds its planned vehicular tunnels there.
- Allowing LU to clear up to seven acres of trees beyond what has been specifically designated within the master plan. University officials requested that revision as a means of preserving some flexibility in their future development options.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
hogtown gal, the TRBC and LU entities do not pay taxes however… the 10,000+ that are here because of the two do pay taxes. LU is one of the largest employers in the city. Think of all the income tax that is generated to pay for the roads and facilities. The students also spend millions each year at the resaurants ands shops around the campus. Don’t act like you are funding everything out of your pocket. Some of us are thankful for the growth and are happy for the increased tax revenue that is helping to pay for the improvements to the public school system here.
whysobitter, Candler’s mtn has been in Lynchburg for generations. LU and TRBC should not be allowed to build anything else on that mtn because of all the traffic congestion MESS they have already created on Wards Rd. Jerry Falwell nor LU does not own this town as they think they do. Jerry Falwell, before he discovered he could make big bucks and fame by becoming a preacher, worked at the Foundry. I hear he used to go out to drink with the guys after work every day. Progress is fine as long as it is not done at other people’s expense (the taxpayers who must foot the bill for the roads, traffic lights, more police, etc. created by LU’s expansions.) Also LU and TRBC pay NO TAXES since they are tax exempt.
So let me see if I got this right…God owns the mountain. Therefore the fact that by law Liberty owns the land on most of the mountain means nothing because God owns it and we shouldn’t build on something God owns…
by that logic does that mean we should all live in the woods somewhere and not build houses because God owns all the land??
That is seriously the most flawed argument I have ever heard. At least Cosmo is upright about how he feels about Christianity in general…of course his views are unconstitutional…but that is another story all together…saying Liberty or any other person or group shouldn’t build on their own land because it is God’s land is just plain silly…
Puffin, U are right about Candler’s Mtn. I always thought the Candlers whome the mtn is named after owned it. U are right too about Falwell and how he did not want anybody in this town to drink and tried to stop it from even being sold - and this coming from the son of a bootlegger who made his fortune by moonshining.
luv2bliberal - Hey, that sounds GREAT. But can you please make sure that they are Male strippers? Thanks…......
But remember I don’t live on CANDLERS Mountain that GOD owns and not LU so don’t go to the wrong watering hole. Oh by the way, I do believe Mr. Falwell may frown upon the idea of alcohol. While he was still with us he was able to condemn that in town too, though it was and is legal…...
Puffin,
I’m glad you feel that way. I agree with you. I plan on having a bunch of strippers with me and the boys in “your” backyard saturday night. Since no one “owns” anything anymore. We are having beer, BBQ, and baked beans. Get your car off the blocks back there, that is where we are going to put the band…........
I’m not sure what all the homosexual, anti-Jesus comments have to do with the subject of the City Planners allowing L.U. destroy more of Lynchburg and GOD’S mountains?? (particularly CANDLERS Mountain that LU thinks they Own, but really God does..no man can own a mountain, only their VANITY can…..) Jerry Falwell did not create the world (although some poor souls believe he did), the Lord did—therefore it is HIS, not anybody, LU or anybody else’s…........
Finally, I’ve repeatedly objected to and talked about the demonizing of homosexuals, but you still throw it in my face like I haven’t dealt with it already. If your going to quasi accuse me of hating homosexuals, then at least address my previous post on evolutionary fitness and take into context what I believe. I remember you had objections to my logical conclusions of naturalism and homosexuals, I answered them and this is the way you respond, not addressing what I said nor taking into account that I hold to what Evangelical Christianity logically should believe about homosexuals….I’m not trying to be ignorant, but if were going to talk lets talk, not just vent. I don’t want to be wasting my time responding to posts just to have you ignore what I said and paint me as some abhorrent mongrel
4.) Regarding your issue about Jesus’ cowardice, you also stated that even if Jesus existed (previously in your post)...so i’m not sure if you even believe he walked the earth so what exactly is your question? It seems your asking a theological question based upon morals (and you can’t have objective morals) but you may not even believe Jesus existed. I’m not trying to punt, but could we start with the simpler and work to the complex; if you don’t believe Jesus even existed then that question seems null. Therefore, does Jesus exist, was he crucified, ect…
Furthermore, it seems to be a moral judgement against God and Jesus; which according to the theory of naturalism I don’t know how you can have a moral condemnation on Him. You have to admit ‘objective morals’ to condemn God, which thereby admit him; or you can say God doesn’t exist but you can’t have ‘objective morals’ to condemn him by. It seems to be a vicious circle, C.S. Lewis even admitted to the circle while he was still an atheist…
To summate my posts, once again Naturalism and Theism both come from the same generic type of Philosophical argumentation; and they both have their own non-objectively verifiable presuppostions. Therefore, I suggest we deal more with the issues on which they differ, and I’ve stated them repeatedly. I also hope you realize I admitted the limits of Theism, and I wish you see the limits of naturalism. Furthermore, I really hope my point that the history of a worldview should not be weighed heavily upon it; because that is a fallacy and i’m sure it’s only something you practice against Christianity and not a myraid of other beliefs such as Naturalism. Eh if feel like summating more, but I also feel like sleeping, i’m spent…g’night
2.) My point of ID’s searching for truth’s about God’s world, what if (like above), they viewed events as supernatural but searched for a natural answer anyways to unveil more of God’s creation. Afterall, thats what many of the Fathers of Science did; they were theists who sought to discover the truth of the world around them and not believe superstition for the sake of superstition. So do you hold grudges against them as well, because it’s naturalism that was built on the backs of these men, and you do have a way of holding someone’s history against them…...(note copernicus, galileo, newton, lyell, and mendel to name a few)
**note my point of history is your comments below about the crusades and Christian oppresion, which i willingly call abhorrent, but as you say…leapords dont change their spots so does that mean naturalists are Christian, hmmm man thats wierd
3.) You know, everything you described about Christianity as wrong, is absolutely entirely..correct!!!, well almost. You see I agree with you, Cosmo, everything that you claimed was an evil; I reject it as well. However, my worldview allows me to believe certain things are wrong no matter when, who, where or why; their called objective morals. The funny thing is, one can only have them in a Theistic (transcendant) framework, naturalism can only account for ‘subjective morality’. I’m wondering if you will try to prove how naturalism has ‘objective morality’ which is a futile endeavor, or will you simply admit to subjective morality and realize you have no ‘absolute’ claim as to why those actions were wrong….
Furthermore, you have to trim your time frame down, none of those things were found in the Early Church of Christianity, your time frame is more like 800 years. Continuing, do you hate all naturalists? It is the theory of naturalism that led to Marxism, Communism, and Neitzche greatly influenced Hitler. Therefore, is one to forget the history of naturalism, or to put it on the stake just as you had done with Christianity. You see, both worldviews have had horrible blemishes on their history, however which worldview allows a person to objectively say both blemishes are wrong???
Also to say the Christianity of today will revert to the Christianity of the past is guilty of the genetic fallacy. Just to say something will be wrong because of where it came from is a fallacy, and i wonder if you practice it in everyday life. Do you not respect all Japanese, German, Chinese, or Muslim people because of the history they have had, or is it only Christians that your abhor. My thought is that you probably only commit the genetic fallacy with Christians not groups of people who have been at war with this nation or have attacked it.
I agree that nobody can disprove a negative, unless one would have absolute truth. However, just as anti-naturalism is a negative; so is atheism, or naturalism. For example, A.) God exists so atheism can’t be true B.)or atheism is true so God doesn’t exist (can you see how both are negative). You state that it’s up for me to prove my position is true, it’s the same for you. I’m not saying you have to prove me wrong but you have to prove yourself right; for either one of us to say our position is the only logical answer is a claim of absolute truth; and see below how neither one can be known to be true
Naturalism doesn’t answer how the world began, the complexity in the universe or in evolved life, or how the first cell came to be. Tell me how the world is uncaused when it obviously came into existence a finite time ago, modern cosmology affirms this; or how did the first cell began, some ‘naturalists’ suppose that alien life did it. The truth of the matter is, we may never know how these things truly happened ‘scientifically’/‘naturally’, to say that we will one day discover the naturalistic causes of these things is to not understand the limitations of science (then again we might discover, you logically have to leave in both possibilities 1.) We may never know 2.) or we might know). One doesn’t know what we can discover with science until we actually discover it, science cannot predict what it itself can do. I dare you to scientifically verify what science will one day predict, it can’t be done
Furthermore, because there are things that Naturalism can’t answer, that’s the only way one could suppose supernaturalism. My point is that you can’t naturally prove supernaturalism, if you did, then it wouldn’t be supernatural!!. You can only state that there are some things that naturalism can’t account for and then suppose that these events maybe supernatural. So to say one has to prove supernaturalism, well thats like making a square peg fit a round hole, it’s logically impossible; one can only infer supernaturalism. However, that being said, one cannot know the limits of science or if science will answer all the difficulties of naturalism, that’s also impossible. Cosmo, my point in this is, neither one of us can fully disprove the other, because they are both negative statements and both views have limitations..so let’s talk the issues instead, I think I’ve listed them like 3 times. (ie, Big Bang, first cell, and complexity…I’d also like to know if you believe in objective morals)
Oh and even if you proved all the objections of naturalism have a scientific probable answer, one can just say it’s God working through nature. Afterall, if he does exist, he created the natural world; why wouldn’t he just work through it by the laws of nature. Granted that is a cop out, but its a cop out that can’t be proven wrong; and the thought that science will one day prove the difficulties of naturalism have a natural answer can never be proven wrong either (since supernaturalism can never be proven right scientifically, it can only be infered; however, science can never prove supernaturalism wrong since it’s outside the methods limits). My point again is simple, both arguments fall under the same philosophical argumentation, both need absolute truth; neither will ever recieve it fully.
Advertisement