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
so no more write something up in word then cut and paste it onto here for me…man that looks like chicken scratch
Okay so I can see this empirical/ historical thing between us going on and on with no real effect. Therefore, maybe we can talk more of the origin issues instead, like lets get down to the Big Bang or origin of the first cell..ect. I will say that it�s not my intent to say we can�t know anything from the past, or can�t apply scientific principles historically (obviously b/c I have to arrive at Old Earth Creationism some way); my point is that origins doesn�t affect how someone practices lab work, ecology, or medicine in today�s society, and you haven�t refuted that.
You said �To throw out a working hypothesis that allows further knowledge and ever-expanding understanding just because certainty can not/never be observed is condemning us to stand still. All beginnings are hypothesis in science. ATTEMPTING to PROVE it untrue is the very fuel of science.�
I agree so can one attempt to prove Naturalism untrue, non-viable, or does it get a free pass? And I thought I made the suggestion, maybe I just thought it haha, and would you have a problem with Intelligent Designers if they just believe what they did but still tried to discover things about the universe; thereby, making them not anti-naturalist, nor anti-supernaturalism. Therefore IDer�s who use their arguments but still seek truth from the past, in essence, seeking to see how the designer worked through nature�so would you have a problem with that.
You said �My beef is that all religions MUST somehow demonize all others to retain any power to accomplish, neurologically, what religions do.� However, do you get a free pass because you�re �unreligious�. Is it acceptable to demonize supernaturalism so that naturalism may rein supreme? The problem here is everyone who holds to a truth claim demonizes all other truth claims that don�t agree with there�s, this is just part of logic. If A, B, C, D, and E all claim to be true, but all are mutually exclusive then only one can be true. So if all these options are religious, then yes they will polemically go after the other religions because they are logically contradictory to their view, for A to be right all others have to be wrong. However if you introduce, F, and it says all �religions� are wrong, is it practicing any less of a demonization as you call it?
You say, �There are NO cultures without paranormal beliefs! It is a byproduct of neurological evolution. For the vast majority the answer �I don�t know� to the most important questions in life is UNACCEPTABLE in the extreme.�
Okay, you�re right, there are hundreds of religions that have argued for that they are the ultimate truth, however, that doesn�t mean one couldn�t be. In fact, only one could or should be; if all of these are contradictory than only one could potentially be true; it�s similar to the NCAA tournament, only one can win. So the fact that there are gazoodles of religions out there doesn�t prove me wrong, you actually have to do that point by point.
Also what do you consider the most important questions in life, Cosmo??
And once again a comment about Christianity ruling the world, and that we should all be afraid of this very terrible religion. We should be afraid of a religion who�s adherent�s should believe that murder is wrong, equality of all people because they are made in the image of God, who claim their kingdom is in heaven (not on earth), who should have compassion on others, and they should take care of the environment�.we should all go bolt up the shelters immediately!!!!
to tired to post on the 2nd post, will do 2morrow
(Cosmo) I appreciate that you want to remain anonymous, I must have been misled by you suggesting we meet in person to talk about the books I plan on reading, and you offering to pay for them if I so wished. Sorry for giving you my e-mail, I just assumed since you wanted to eventually meet in person, exchanging e-mails would be a first step Create a hotmail account possibly, for the sole purpose of conversing; I’m not going to fwd to you pictures of cute puppy dogs, chain letters, or magic pills that help with (uh this thing is moderated so never mind ha)
I’d much rather quote from PhD’s and scholarly sources, however, since this is essentially a blog and I’m already online I’m going to copy and past two quotes from two websites regarding evolutionary fitness, and you can search more for yourself; I suggest typing how is evolutionary fitness measure
“In a nebulous sense, fitness is a measure of an organism’s ultimate reproductive success. This is a composite of viability (the ability to survive), fecundity and the age of first reproduction” http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=fitness
“Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central concept in evolutionary theory. It describes the capability of an individual of certain genotype to reproduce, and usually is equal to the proportion of the individual’s genes in all the genes of the next generation” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology)
***haha as wikipedia is not scholarly, but it should prove a point
You said many species change sex, yes I’m aware of this; however, it has nothing to do with the subject matter. Change of sex has nothing to do with “proportion of an individual’s genes to the genes of the next generation”, this is a red herring, it does nothing to refute how evolutionary fitness is measured nor does it show that homosexuals are inclined to have as much gene transfer as other organisms. It simply states that some species change sex, well cool; it doesn’t even deal with efficiency of gene transfer
You make the point of homosexual Native American’s (I love learning so please tell me where one got this information). I must say as interesting as this is, it pertains to social fitness at best. Evolutionary fitness is a measure of organisms with one genotype, not a society of individuals with a similar phenotype but a variety of genotypes. To simplify Evolutionary fitness deals with the singular, your example is for the multiple. Furthermore, your own argument still doesn’t explain how the homosexual genes are passed at as high of a rate as heterosexual genes, making them on a similar fitness level.
Cosmo, you seem to accuse me of some horrible crime by using the term “lesser organisms”. I don’t know what your point is?? I emphatically stated that it wasn’t my view; I said that it seems to be a logical conclusion of strict naturalism (not evolution, b/c Theistic evolution could do away with that terminology). My view is that of logical evangelicalinism ( new word ha) that they are equal beings, made in the image of the creator, made for a purpose, loved, and that I’m no better…so don’t accuse me of something I vehemently denied.
You also criticize my view that Naturalism logically means we are matter (nothing. special), uncaused (by nothing), here for nothing, from whence we came hence we go (no purpose, no eternal value), and we do nothing (no moral ought). However, right below your criticism you essentially justify the first two premises!!!!
You basically state that we are matter (1st premise) and that we are created by God, who is matter and he is in all of us,( pantheism); which means that if God is matter, and we are matter, then we have always been which makes us uncaused!!! (2nd premise). I further argue that we have no eternal value, are you telling me Cosmo you believe we have some transcendent value and not that when life ends we just turn back to matter and that’s it (3rd premise) (B/c if you do, then that’s not naturalism). Finally, there can’t be objective morals in a Naturalistic system, there can only be subjective morals; and with no objective morality there can’t be any true ‘moral ought’ because it’s subjective (4th premise). For example, explain why Hitler was objectively wrong, or why LU is objectively wrong according to Naturalism???
You ask who would believe that? I will admit many naturalists don’t, but that doesn’t mean the theory doesn’t logically lead to my points. Some of the most moral people in the world are atheistic naturalists, and some of the worst (benny hinn, the crusaders) have come in the name of Christianity. However, Nihilists and egocentric humanists would agree; because they, as I believe, see the logical conclusion of Naturalism…and your right I don’t know who in their right mind would want to believe that, I’m glad I don’t. I’m also glad that you don’t want to believe that, however, it’s not my fault that’s where your premises logically conclude
I have to admit my LDS example was a bad one, thanks for pointing that out. As I’m no expert on Constitutional Law, I was honestly trying to come up with an example of a group of people with a view aberrant to the constitution, In retrospect though, the LDS changed their position by no congressional pressure (if my mind serves me right).
Furthermore, if one took my analogy to its logical conclusion, than yes there would be a problem for the RCC and many evangelical churches. However, there would also be a problem for the US Army and USMC because they don’t allow women in active combat roles (and these are dept’s to the gov’t). So I must say I need to retract my analogy and apologize to any LDS members that I may have offended.
In short, I was trying to come up with a real world example, instead of coming up with some hypothetical analogy. I should have just said, any group that would teach murder is Okay and practice it, or rape is okay (should be dealt with). I don’t know of any such group, the closest thing I can imagine is the Jim Jones situation, if it would have stayed in the USA
Finally, groups out there that seek to change government are numerous. Afterall, Cosmo want’s to change gov’t in the way to get rid of any hint of supernaturalism or religion (I assume). Then there are institutions like LU who seek change, however, thats the beauty of the democratic system. And I see no reason for either view to be stomped out, when we allow anti-American, anti-government speech in this country. If one can speak death to America in America, then I don’t think LU is that bad off..
I don’t think LU or TRBC should be given any more permits to expand until they build sufficient roads to take care of the traffic mess they have already created. You can’t even get onto Wards Road when LU is having some event. Before LU and when TRBC met on Perrymont Ave in the mid 70’ties, you could not get up Fort Ave when TRBC let out. Their Security or members would get out at the corner of Perrymont and Fort ave. and direct traffic (let all the TRBC traffic out of Perrymont, and overriding the traffic light.) Non-TRBC traffic would be backed up for miles on Fort ave while the Christians ‘do unto one as you would like to be done unto”.
Josh (jdrubeck), I have a question on one of your posts, a request for clarification. You wrote:
“I made the argument that I hope any school with any views would be cooperated with by government officials as long as none of their views contradicted the constitution, or had views that would add to the constitution (ie. BYU would have been wrong at one point b/c the Church of LDS believed until 1972 that african americans couldn�t be clergy in the church, this contradicted equality for all people according to our national documents).“
Just out of curiosity, since “equality for all people according to our national documents” is part of your argument when referring to the inclusion of African-Americans to the clergy in LDS, what do you think of the Roman Catholic position on the non-inclusion of women to clergy positions, which currently is still defended by their hierarchy? Since it contradicts the government’s stance on equality, should the government step into that decision if the RCC still wants tax-exempt status under current law?
Furthermore, I didn’t read your post about 9/11 only Lynchburg Businessman’s and I thought i Understood the context. I apologize for assuming you were right and thats my fault for not reading thoroughly.
Also to the rest of the board, I’ve been the lone Christian on other boards constantly having others chime in just to tell me I’m dumb and not to offer anything to the argument. So if for whatever reason you would feel like doing that to Cosmo or me please don’t, it adds nothing to the discussion and only fuels illogic.
Anyways to all, God bless, have an amazing Memorial Day weekend. Thank a Veteran for all they’ve done if you get the chance, they truley are the backbone of this Nation
Josh R
My point isn’t to be harsh, but the point is that the issue is a free speech issue. You have the freedom to speak against LU, or to start a school and teach against it…LU should have the same freedom, it’s constitutional
Moving on, as a recent alumni the only thing LU teaches is that homosexuals are no worse than liars, cheaters, or adulterers (all are equally sinners). I know even the suppose King of Gay Bashing (Jerry F.) was hated by Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church for condeming them for their comments that God hates Fags. Okay now let me paint out the logical naturalistic picture of homosexuals and the logical Christian perspective on them
Naturalism: The evolutionary fitness of an organism is determined by the quantity of viable offspring it can produce. Since everything is natural Homosexuals have to be a result of nature. Homosexuals produce less offspring than heterosexuals, thereby making them less evolutionary fit, or rather lesser organisms.
Furthermore, according to Naturalism we are nothing (matter), by nothing (uncaused), for nothing (no purpose), to do nothing (no moral “ought”). Also no one ever teaches that the average lifespand of a homosexual male is under the age of 55 (we are so quick to stop smoking, but are we okay with letting gay people die)
Christianity: Homosexuals and Heterosexuals are both created in the image of God, both loved by God, both are equal sinners, both have equal chance at redemption. Both are caused, both have a purpose, both have direction, and both have “objectified morals” (they are both equal)
Grandted Cosmo, it seems the Christianity on T.V. would teach that gay’s are the most despised thing on the planet, however these people aparently don’t understand Scripture and logic. Futhermore, just because that’s the logical conclusion I see from Naturalism; that doesn’t mean naturalists believe Homosexuals to be lesser (ppl don’t always take their worldviews to a full conclusion…note how few nihilists there are)
As far as LU being the enemy of science. It maybe the enemy of anti-supernaturalism but not science. You may not see a difference, I do, but its a philosophy of science issue rather than a scientific one I presume. (we can devulge more onto this later, I have to leave for work in 20 min)
To Cosmo,
Okay i’ll read the books, just give me time to order them online. One condition I at least get to pick one book for you to read, preferably two (to make things even, and i promise you it won’t be the Bible haha). However, I hope we don’t have to wait until then to continue discussing issues, as I already said please contact me at jdrubeck@liberty.edu (and just b/c it’s and LU address you won’t get junk mail, i don’t think…you may get tracked though hmmm ha). It would seem that email between the both of us would do more to discuss the issues than some of the ad hominem attacks I’ve seen on here (not referring to you Cosmo). Furthermore, if you wanted to meet in person instead of email thats always good too, just send me and email regarding the details.
Now dealing with your points, you really don’t sound condescending; and I sort of agree with you. I agree with the point that you learn as you get older, and trust me I can see alot of difference in me in just the past five years. However, just because i’m younger (i suppose) doesn’t mean that I’m wrong. In my opinion appeal to authority is the same thing as as an appeal to age, its a logical fallacy…however, it makes sense (ie. who wouldn’t trust a Ph. D over a GED, who wouldn’t trust a 50 year old over a 10 year old) So i’m seeing your point Cosmo, and I’m not taking it as condescending.
On the other hand, i’m not trying to be condescending either, but you didn’t address to many of my rebuttals. I don’t know if I’m to assume that you didn’t agree because I’m younger or that there’s points that you don’t logically agree with, feel free to share on here or on email.
I apologize if this post isn’t as well together as others I’ve made, I’ve gotten 12 hrs sleep in 3 nights, and i’m not proofreading haha. Continuing, if your point about gay bashing is true ( which i’ll disagree on and show you why) aren’t you guilty of the same thing by bashing LU/ TRBC repeatedly??? It’s similar to the fallacy that lets be tolerant except to those that aren’t tolerant, your guilty of the same thing you condemn.
Advertisement