Hunter's first trial

[marty]

And an exciting issue it is.  Time to park it!?!

Maybe they wouldn't be so upset if the stump were still dead and rotting.

"We're not out to hurt the students," Officer O'Hara said. "But when the time comes, we'll do what is necessary to remove them."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/nyregion/18cornell.html?ex=1122350400&en=fecfbe60fa3972bf&ei=5070&emc=eta1

Read while its hot!::drive::

[Tub(a)]

According to the Redbud Woods website, they have reached a deal to "end the occupation." It doesn't appear that the deal involves saving the Redbuds at all.

[KeithK]

Holding a candlelight vigil over a piece of overgrown lawn seems a little ridiculous.  

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

 Holding a candlelight vigil over a piece of overgrown lawn seems a little ridiculous.  [/q]

Yeah, of all the wilderness to go to the mat over.  You'd think they could have chosen something a little more wild.

[marty]

Get a load of this statement which was alluded to by tub(a):

[Q]An agreement has been reached between the Working Group and the Cornell Administration to end the occupation of the woods in exchange for a number of steps to further sustainability and democracy at Cornell. We remain opposed to this parking lot, and are still determined to challenge and transform the power structures of our University. To all our supporters, thanks and stay involved![/Q]

[David Harding]

If you want to read it yourself, here's the link.
http://redbudwoods.org/latestnews.html

[Roy 82]

[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:

 [Q2]KeithK Wrote:

 Holding a candlelight vigil over a piece of overgrown lawn seems a little ridiculous.  [/Q]
Yeah, of all the wilderness to go to the mat over.  You'd think they could have chosen something a little more wild.[/q]

Yeah, but of all the rediculous things to propose building there you think that they could have chosen something a little more wild. C'mon, who the hell really needs another parking lot. There is that historical promise stuff too.

The developer only needs to win one battle. The conservationist must fight a thousand. I say ::rock::

[KeithK]

I never had a car while I was at Cornell, but I think it's very safe to say that the school clearly needs more parking.  Where to put it is a different question.

[Roy 82]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

..... I think it's very safe to say that the school clearly needs more parking....[/Q]

Well, I think it is safe to say that fewer people need to be driving. So go figure.::idea::

[ninian '72]

Not that Cornell has been oblivious to this problem, Roy.  From Hunter's statement regarding the agreement:

"Cornell is, on an overall basis, short of the parking needed to meet demand from its faculty, staff, students, surrounding community and visitors. In the past 11 years, the university has not created any net additional parking space. The number of requests for permits has risen by about 1,000 during this period. In order to address additional demand, Cornell has implemented a program of free transit and other incentives such as rideshare for faculty and staff members. This program has now reached 35 percent penetration among the faculty and staff members who drive alone to campus for work. These individuals now use free transit, rideshare or other alternatives. Among universities, that level of participation is quite high and demonstrates the seriousness and success of Cornell's program."

For the full statement, go to:

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/WCRP_STATEMENT.tb.html

[KeithK]

As a native New Yorker and someone who hates the fact that I (more or less) have to drive everywhere now, I don't necessarily disagree with you in the abstract.  But it isn't very reasonable to expect the majority of Cornell staff to take public transportation in Ithaca (Tompkins County has very good trasportation considering it's size, but we're not talking NYC here).  And unless you take Greg's suggestion from another thread and forbid students from having cars on campus a large number are going to want to have cars and therefore need parking.

[Rosey]

[Q]Roy 82 Wrote:
Well, I think it is safe to say that fewer people need to be driving. So go figure.
[/q]
Well, golly, with logic like this, you've convinced me. 'scuse me while I ::yark::

Seriously:

(1) Ithaca is not NYC.  There aren't subways getting you from point A to point B in 10 minutes flat, including the initial wait.  TCAT is wonderful considering how small a market the Ithaca/Lansing/Dryden area is, but a car is simply much more convenient.  Note the same generally *isn't* true for NYC.

(2) Ever try taking 12 bags of groceries on a bus?

(3) Stop telling other people what's better for them.  Let people make their own choices.

Cheers,
Kyle

[Jerseygirl]

Without really getting into how maybe people should stop being selfish ("I HAVE A RIGHT TO DRIVE MY CAR!!!!!!!") and consider the greater good (less cars = less pollution, and every little bit helps, even in Ithaca), would it really be so bad, for instance, to not allow freshmen to have cars on campus? Inconvenience builds character, and a lot of Cornell students could use a healthy dose of character. (And yes, I have taken a large amount of groceries on the bus, in the winter, when my car was in the shop, during my junior year, when I lived off campus.)

The opinion I have on this issue is less about Redbud Woods and more about the general laziness of Americans that our culture seems to actively encourage. That said, does anyone know if they're tearing down any buildings for the lot? I heard that the building in which I lived my senior year was going to be torn down, and then it wasn't, and now I don't know. I hope not; I had a blast in that place.

[billhoward]

Circa 1958, Clark Kerr (president of the University of California), quipped, “I find that the three major administrative problems on a campus are sex for the students, athletics for the alumni, and parking for the faculty."

Not every empty lot with trees is a priceless ecological resource. Isn't "Redbud Woods" a description the pro-status quo, anti-parking lot side chose ... and the university never offered a compelling alternative descriptor that could have used the words "trash-strewn" or "malarial"?

Sometimes progress does screw up the enviroment. We hiked up Buttermilk Falls the Fourth of July weekend and damned if the tree huggers weren't right -- when you turn around and look down the trail, the orange Home Depot roof structure off yonder on the other side of Route 13 really is a jarring eyesore and it's definitely visible. You'd think Home Depot could've worked out some compromise like siding and a roof that was orange when you looked up at it from the ground and green when you looked down from above. If you can paint the side of a truck to show either Elvis or Jesus depending on which way you're looking, maybe Home Depot could've done something similar. And isn't Home Depot proud of being the employer of more Olympians than any other company? You'd think their commitment to the recreational hiker / athlete would be a nice parallel effort.

[Roy 82]

Cool, an off-season quasi-flame fest. You folks must be as bored as I am (actually, I am procrastinating). Or perhaps the topic is driving you crazy:)

[Q]krose Wrote:

 [Q2]Roy 82 Wrote:
Well, I think it is safe to say that fewer people need to be driving. So go figure.
[/Q]
Well, golly, with logic like this, you've convinced me. 'scuse me while I  [/q]

OK, clearly my witty retort was too much to handle. I will slow it down and spell it out. So why is suggesting that having fewer cars any less valid a solution to the problem of parking than adding parking spots? I'm just trying to break the conventional paradigm by pointing out that "must drive" is not a given fact. As ninian'72 already pointed out , Cornell is already pursuing many of  approaches to make non-car transportation more convenient.

[Q]
(1) Ithaca is not NYC.  There aren't subways getting you from point A to point B in 10 minutes flat, including the initial wait.  TCAT is wonderful considering how small a market the Ithaca/Lansing/Dryden area is, but a car is simply much more convenient.  Note the same generally *isn't* true for NYC.[/Q]

Yes, and I suspect that the vast majority of folks in Ithaca have no problem using their cars for most of their trips. Plenty of parking and light traffic. For those who need to drive to campus, I am not sure how providing parking for people who live on or near campus will really help.

I lived well off campus for a couple of years and owned a car. I happened to find it more enjoyable and convenient to walk or ride to campus most of the time. Bully for me. Lack of parking on  and near campus was part of the equation.

[Q]
(2) Ever try taking 12 bags of groceries on a bus?[/Q]
Ever try hauling a ton of gravel in a hatchback? We should all drive dump trucks.  ::screwy::
Obviously, there are times when a car is more desirable. But for many people, going a short distance to campus or to a nearby grocery store isn't one of them.

[Q]
(3) Stop telling other people what's better for them.  Let people make their own choices.[/Q]

Aside from the delightful irony and hypocrisy of your statement, I just want to point out that I have not advocated banning cars and therefore have in no way prevented people from making their choices. The convenience of driving vs. not driving is part of making such a choice.

I would even go one step further and argue that it is the car-dependent people who are taking away my choice.  I happen to prefer a more bucolic, walkable, integrated community over one with more parking, more traffic, wider roads, isolated people, etc. That is my choice (cue Joni Mitchell).

There is also the implicit assumption in your statement that those who advocate alternatives to driving want to take away someone's freedom. Using public and university resources to make car driving more convenient is every bit as much "social engineering" as encouraging people to use non-car means or simply allowing traffic pressures to discourage people from driving.

What is really amazing to me is that the mere suggestion that it is good for people to get out of their cars is so threatening to some people. I happen to agree with Jerseygirl but I don't even think that we need to appeal to the greater good to drive less. I am doing it based on my own selfish choices.