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
Cosmo said “Believe me when I say I do not mean to be condescending, but, at your age I too had all the answers.“ Don’t take us for fools! You still think you have all the answers! Good thing you can hide behind the blog; take your argument to Josh person to person and I’d wager he’d leave you stammering and angrier than you already are!
okay so i’m so sorry that i ranted there, that was more of an essay that a post, 5000 character limit made me cut and paste 3x…
Oh and i just read you comment that 9/11 was an inside job, is that supposed to be something LU teaches???
Finally, Jerry Falwells statements about 9/11 and women’s rights. First off, may i remind you that Princeton (ivy league) has Peter Singer on staff and Columbia University invited the President of Iran to speak at a ceremony (yeah he calls us the great satan). Furthermore, Rev. Falwell apologized for his statements, and his comments have never been taught in the University; so I will stand up with you and say yeah he was wrong for saying it, but its never been taught and he apologized, so whats your point? They have nothing to do with the intellectual ability of the school.
Now regarding woman’s rights, the issue you bring up is a sanctity of life issue; it’s one of the most hottly debated issues in the country. Seriously, pro-life is a majority held opinion, along with pro-choice; your going to shaft approx. 1/2 of the country and a University on this view, I mean if a man in princeton can argue for killing children i think a University that is pro-life is perfectly acceptable.
Also you compare fundamentalist Christians to radical Islam, I have got to say I don’t agree with this. If you remember from my first post that 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). You may state that LU disagrees with the constitution on abortion, your right, however, they don’t disobey it; they just want the laws to change and they go about this by ways that are perfectly legal set out by the constitution. To compare a university that abides by the law of the land to a radical religious sect that wants all of America dead, is just a ridiculous accusation and I dont’ see how it logically follows except that they are both ‘religious’.
Finally there is yoru comment comparing LU to Nazism, seriously?? Please tell me your joking, once again my refutaion from above works fine; a University that abides by the law of the land, extremely pro-miltary, is compared to Nazi Germany? The analogy just doesn’t follow. Furthermore, HItlers philosophical suppositions come from Nihilism, the logical hopelessness of Atheism; kind of the opposite of LU’s suppositions.
In conclusion. cosmo, I don’t see where some of your arguments fit in at, such as: the comparisons of LU to terrorists and Nazism, James G Watt quotes, ad hoc Bible belt comments, and comments from a former chancellor. However, I do understand you getting on LU for being supernatural; I honestly feel that is a legit complaint, but I don’t see why government shouldn’t cooperate with LU because of it. It seems that LU has the constitutional right to exist and expand and your only true objection is the believe in supernatural things ( so 80% plus Americans believe in ghosts or angels). Furthermore, they aren’t substracting anything from education, this is why they are fully SACS accredited, the same accredation that most southern D-1 schools have; and the SACS accrediting board are the ones trained in these areas and have the Ph. D’s to back it up; so if they say its good then i’m inclined to think so (sorry I know it’s an appeal to authority)
Finally, I’m not trying to paint you as the enemy Cosmo, I just don’t see where your logic comes from all the time. And my point is this, any school no matter what view (conservative, liberal, Christian, or Muslim) should be allowed to have full government support of expansion on private property as long as they are not a school practicing criminal acts, heck start your own school that bashes LU, i don’t care that’s your constitutional right. But don’t critcize others constitutional rights just because you dont’ like them, if you don’t like Christianity and have objections to it, man I’d be more than happy to devulge into that; and feel free to email me at jdrubeck@liberty.edu (trust me you computer won’t blow up for emailing a liberty address, that was a joke man) .
oh one more thing I just thougth about, you got on me for being and Old earther and going to a YEC school, and said I should have went some place that agree more closely with my doctrine. However, you don’t want LU to spread propaganda about unborn rights, but if LU doesn’t exist what happens to the other 40% + students who are pro-life; are they then automatically defaulting into a school that they wont agree with thereby making them non-serious?
sincerely,
Josh R.
ps. if anything was hard to follow please call me on it, i typed this as quick as possible and now I need to go ice my wrists, ha
so points 1,5, and 6 all seem to have a common thread that I wish to address, and that thread is no matter what theory of creation one holds its non-intellectual because it’s not naturalism. And this anti-intellectualism demise of America is evidenced by the stupidity in the Bible-belt.
To start i’m not going to nor will I ever argue for or defend a 6,000 year old earth, only Old earth; and you may call me non-scientific but oh well. The fact of the Matter is pure Naturalism cannot answer origin of the universe, design in the universe, design in life, principle of asthetics, consciousness, irreducible complexity, objective morality, and what caused the first cell. However, everything I am describing are issues that are either philosophical or deal with origin sciences, neither of this issues effect how someone practices an empirical science. And if one would hold to a view of naturalism, you have to just say somethings just are or someday we will find out by science, which is just as much as a statement of faith in my opinion; because saying one day we will find out, isn’t true! I could say one day science will make all humans immortal, but this isn’t necessarily true.
An emprical science is what you, Cosmo, describe as a method, the scientific method. For something to be a true empirical science, it has to be observable, testable, and repeatable; it can’t just be a hypothesis. That is why Christian and Atheistic scientist can both perform Neurosurgery the same way (note Ben Carson arguably the best neurosurgeon is a Christian), they both can practice environmental science the same way, and any science that adheres to the scientific method there should be no difference in the practice of a believe or non-believer.
That being said “origin sciences” are ‘historical sciences’ you can’t observe, test, or repeat you can only hypothesize; these questions only answer from where did we come? So please, Cosmo, don’t confuse these entirely different sciences. I’m not trying to be insulting, but i think its one of the most easily confused issues that origins and “science” are two compeltely different things, one is science and one is historical science.
Moving on to your example of the Bible belt, it’s a totally ad hoc fit the theory defense. One could just as easily say it’s because of the lower economic standing that the Bible belt has lower academic achievements, afterall isn’t this what we see in our inner-cities nationwide and they certainly aren’t on fire for Christianity. Furthermore, home-schooling and Catholic academies are known for having some of the best results of academic achievement. Also the Bible belt public school system is governed by the NEA and is as anti-religious as the rest of the countries public academic system (when’s the last time ID was taught in schools??? hmmmm). Yeah, cosmo, I understand where your coming from but please give a better example of anti-intellectualism b/c this is entirely ad hoc, it just doesn’t follow logically.
Okay now I hope to address issues 2 & 4 since the both deal with comments made by people, or are people supposedly held in high esteem at the University. First the quote from James Watt, I don’t know what the point of that is; if it’s true then I would say he’s wrong and that his view isn’t endorsed by LU. Afterall, it’s not a theologically consistent view for one, and LU has an environmental science program; that would be kind of hypocritical I would think. Furthermore, I found this quote from James G. Watt online,“I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns, whatever it is we have to manage with a skill to leave the resources needed for future generations”. Once again I don’t know what the point of James G. Watt is, he’s not a professor at LU or anything (but Peter Singer is at Princeton), his views aren’t endorsed by the university, and he has made statements that contradict your statement…so i don’t know
Next, George W. Bush, yeah I think he’s a punk. However, this man was loved by over 75% of the country at one point (post 9/11 remember) so should the rest of the country be the enemy of America also? The fact of the matter is people are allowed to change their mind regarding political issues and endorse who they want (thats one of the beauties of democracy), so even if he was beloved at LU it doesn’t matter. Furthermore, just like the rest of the country the love of our President has been decreasing at LU; the university isn’t seperate from society it somewhat mimics it. Furthermore, George Bush isn’t taught to be worshipped at LU so I don’t understand how it even affects the education. So I don’t see why a school would be ‘dealt with’ just because of a conservative orientation; should we get rid of the liberal schools too and make this an entirely one party country, China’s got that…
Okay, the God bless thing was meant more of a joke, to lighten the whole situation (*note the fruity looking smiley faces…trust me its a front I’m not a happy go-lucky Christian). Second, you accuse me of not taking life or education seriously (I apologize for admitting i’m an old-earther, its my bad for trying to find common ground…...). However, I’ve got to say do you lobby the same attacks at Princeton University alumni? Afterall, they have Peter Singer on staff, a distinguished professor who believes that babies could be terminated up to the age of 2 years old if they are ‘handicap’. I bring up this point because thousands of students go the Princeton and don’t agree with this professor (and take his classes or are influenced by him), so I guess they are not serious either, or what about his coleagues??
It is ironic that you accuse LU of dogmatically brainwashing students, however if you meet an alumni who takes the principles he was taught (at said school) and thinks for himself then he is ‘not serious’. Cosmo, you seem like an intelligent,opinionated person; but you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If I, Josh Rubeck, am a rational person who wasn’t brainwashed then i’m not serious about education, but if I fit your version of what LU is, then i’m a dogmatic knuckle dragger…..it’s like there is no way to win in your court.
Continuing, before I address the main issue at hand I would just like to defend myself one last time, summate is a word http://www.thefreedictionary.com/summate
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/summate
Yeah, from now on I’d much rather address the issues, than divergent topics like this such as language and typo’s…
Onward to your argument against LU, in summation I take your points to be 1.) LU teaches a 6000 year old earth, and the fact that this is origin’s science doesn’t matter 2.) LU dogmatically brainwashes people, and this is based upon Falwell’s comments after 9/11 and the sanctity of life view held. 3.) View of Heaven and Hell and a comparison to fundamentalist muslims 4.) James Watt’s speech and President Bush 5.) The Bible Belt is the enemy of education and supports the highest illeteracy rate and the reason why we spend so much on education 6.) LU is anti-intellectual and so am I because of our “God of the Gaps” theories 7.) LU is like the Nazis
ok so this is going to be a long post
Cosmo, if I paid for you to move, would you please leave our beautiful city? You obviously don’t fit in here and do not like it, so why not go where you are welcomed? I here China is nice this time of year. There you would be praised for you ideologies. Here you are just a loud mouth minority. This country and its leaders are predominately religious to some degree (including your democratic nominee and every president in history) and will continue to be. You have the right to your opinion just as we do, but you are fighting a losing battle here. As to your comment about going to a school of higher learning and not agreeing with everything that they teach, you can find Bible classes at almost every University in the country. Do you expect all of the students and the University of Colorado to believe that 9/11 was an inside job as did the one nutcase professor? Students that do not want a Christian education have the choice to attend the college of their liking, but as it appears, more and more students are turning to a moral, Biblical education every year. Thus the need for expansion. Now, humor us with more of your closed minded rhetoric =)
LU and TRBC pay no taxes so all city taxpayers pay more. LU has already created far too much traffic on Wards Rd. We used to have a NEWS newspaper. Now we have a LU and TRBC paper as that is about all that is now in our paper since the LU graduates got jobs at the newspaper office. When we have important local news, what’s on the front page? Some LU event or TRBC. Since not all readers are members of TRBC or LU, we would rather read real local and state and national news. In the late 70’ties, TRBC security or church members used to override the traffic light at Perrymont and Fort Ave. to let all their church members out first while the traffic on Fort Ave. backed up. Christian way???
I believe in freedom of religion, whatever religion that is Cosmo…and if you do not choose to follow any religion, more power to you…
killing in the name of religion, no matter what religion it is, is wrong..you can keep on trying to twist everything to fit what you view as “perfect” all you want..I do not ask you to change your beliefs, and you should not do the same on others simply because you believe you are intellectually superior then any person following any religion could ever be…
Again, you have yet to give a solid reason, legally, why the city of Lynchburg should not have approved this plan…you again have completely avoided that issue and continue to talk about things that are so off based that its laughable…
oh well….
So again this is all about your hatred of religion. You wish you could control the growth of a school because they believe something you do not. That, my friend, is most close minded attitude I have encountered in a long time.
I just don’t understand how somebody goes through life being so bitter towards religion…
Cosmo,
Please. Mature is respecting the Constitution of this country and peeps rights to hold their own views regardless what others think of them. So what are you suggesting Lynchburg city council do…...kick them out?
Advertisement