Opinion | Editorial
Redbud II?
Editorial
September 17, 2007 - 11:00pmIt’s been two-and-a-half years since Cornell “paved paradise and put up a parking lot” on University Ave. Flash forward to the present day and we are at a similar crossroads. Only this time, there’s a 270-day building moratorium before the fate of Sapsucker Woods is decided.
During the Redbud Woods debacle, environmentalists and activists found a clear adversary in Cornell. It was almost too perfect. Big Red Bureaucracy vs. heroic students. This time, Cornell has chosen to remain a silent third party in the ongoing debate between developer Rocco Lucente and Ithaca residents.
In a sense, Cornell’s silence is prudent. After all, inaction prevents students from chaining themselves to President Skorton’s desk. Lucente has wisely pledged 25 acres of Sapsucker Woods to Cornell’s Lab of Ornithology to counter the construction of his new housing development project, Briarwood II, thus providing the University with a material incentive to keep her Big Red Lips shut.
But on the other hand, by offering Cornell a slice of the pie, Lucente has (somewhat deviously) involved us in Redbud II. With so many studies and reports in dispute, Cornell cannot afford to remain apathetic on this issue.
The University now needs to assist with ecological and hydrological research, and if the housing development is eventually built, advocate for a plan that is environmentally friendly. Such measures will benefit both Cornell and the City of Ithaca in the long run — an ecologically sound building plan will block Briarwood II stormwater runoff from seeping into the remaining parts of Sapsucker Woods and will ensure the creation of natural buffer zones between the development and the rest of the ecosystem.
Despite Cornell’s alleged commitment to sustainability, the University has recently accumulated a list of environmental issues that it must confront. In addition to Sapsucker Woods, Cornell has been criticized for its lack of concern for the ecological effects of its Lake Source Cooling project. As a land grant institution with a long history of activism, Cornell ought to take a resolute stand on the fate of the Sapsucker Woods, whatever it may be.
"lack of concern"???
What are you guys smoking down in the Sun offices? Cornell has shown a "lack of concern for the ecological effects of its Lake Source Cooling project"? Yes, you do hedge your words by saying "Cornell has been criticized", but obviously by the tone of the sentence and the editorial, you show your agreement with that criticism.
What planet are you on? Cornell has reduced the power consumption used in cooling by more than 80%. In case you haven't noticed, power around here comes from burning coal - either at Milliken Station up the lake, or right here at home on Route 366 down the hill from Schoellkopf. Which would you prefer? The lake being 0.00001 degrees warmer, or a ton more (literally, thousands of tons) more C02 and particulate emissions?
Cornell should be celebrated for undertaking this groundbreaking project, not vilified. Folks who complain about lake source cooling under the "environment" banner are showing their true colors: they protest because their self-worth is dependent on having something to protest about, not because they actually want improvement or change. Sad to see that the Sun editorial board has joined that group.
Re: "Lack of Concern"???
Your comments about the energy saving and ecological impact of lack source cooling are important and critical. Howerever, you ruin the chances of being taken seriously when you go off on a tangent attacking the motives of enviromentalists. Are you posting to defend lake source cooling or are you posting because you don't like environmentalists? Those minds whose opinions you would like to change are likely to shut you off when you insult them. Stick to the facts if that is what you are trying to defend and keep your armchair psychoanalysis to yourself, unless that represents the "true colours" of your message.