By wpengine February 13, 2004
The results are in from last night’s Cornell Caucus held in Kaufmann auditorium in Goldwin Smith Hall. Winning the “democratic nomination” was Gov. Howard Dean who went on in a landslide victory to beat George W. Bush 56-17 in the “national election.” “Cornell is Dean Country,” said Peter Cohl ’05, the president of the Cornell for Dean organization, who represented Gov. Dean on the panel discussion held before the vote. Kaufman Auditorium was packed to the brim while students listened to each of the candidate’s views on a select number of issues. Questions were first asked by the moderator Ganesh Sivarajan ’06, the vice president of US India Political Action Committee (US INPAC), to each of the candidates who had 30 seconds to respond to the questions. These four questions included the topics of the USA PATRIOT Act, campaign finance reform, affirmative action and immigration reform. Each representative had 30 seconds to respond to each prompt as if they were the actual candidate. US INPAC and a variety of other minority groups on campus generated the questions in a collaborative effort. The candidates included all four remaining contenders for the democratic nomination. Gov. Howard Dean represented by Peter Cohl ’05, Sen. John Edwards represented by Rachel Gage ’03, and Sen. John Kerry represented by Matthew Gewolb ’04; Ryan Horn ’02 represented President Bush. “I got more votes than Kerry,” said Ryan Horn ’02, a current student at the Cornell Institute for Public Affairs. This was followed by questions from the audience ranging in subject from US-Israeli relations to health care to social security. Questions were either directed at all of the candidates or a specific one. After each candidate gave a brief closing statement, the voting began. Among the democratic candidates Howard Dean received 37 votes, John Edwards received 29 votes and John Kerry received 18 votes. “I thought it went exceptionally well, Howard Dean won the most important primary,” said said. Commenting on the Dean campaign, Cohl added, “I think the Dean campaign serves as a focal point galvanizing a lot of different Democrats and others on campus who want change.” Ryan Horn, equally enthusiastic said, “In the past four years the conservative movement has grown astronomically,” citing several statistics showing the support for President Bush and the Republican party on college campuses across the nation. “I always wanted to be on a panel with Peter Cohl,” Horn said. He also commented on the enthusiasm of the crowd, “I’m really glad I decided to do it.” “I was surprised as to how fun it was, all the candidates were well prepared,” said Raj Shah ’06, the president of US INPAC and one of the organizers of the event. The event was organized through the collective effort of many student groups including US INPAC, a group concerned about Indian American political participation, Democracy Matters, the Cornell Democrats, the Cornell Republicans, and a variety of other minority groups on campus. “I think [US INPAC] did a great job, we on our first event were not as well set up,” said Danny Pearlstein ’05, president of Democracy Matters and a Sun Columnist. “I found at this event that I was able to understand the views of each of the candidates,” said Vivek Jain ’06. In October, there will be a follow up event which will be an actual mock election done online preceding the national election.Archived article by Ted Van Loan
By wpengine February 13, 2004
As many development projects in Ithaca progress, the City Common Council will vote next month on a zoning proposal to allow development on the Cayuga Lake waterfront to continue. Specifically, one of the areas where development is concentrated is Inlet Island. The Inlet Island currently is set to contain multi-story mixed-use buildings that will have street level retail and commercial areas with housing and offices above ground level. The area is approximately 25 acres at the southern end of Cayuga Lake. The Cayuga Lake inlet surrounds the area. Around the waterfront will be a walkway that will connect to major trails in several area state parks, in order to allow residents more access to the waterfront. The development on Inlet Island is taking shape, as guidelines and zoning rules are set. According to the Planning and Development Board’s website, “the goal of the guidelines is to develop Inlet Island in a way that maximizes private development opportunities while providing increased waterfront access for the public. Guidelines include recommendations for land use, public improvements, private development, and implementation.” According to H. Matthys Van Cort, city planning and development director, “I think the most important addition we will make is to the recreation system.” On Feb. 6, the Common Council began to review the zoning proposal, which sets out building heights and other regulations for the development. Due to a minor software glitch that affected the text they were presented with, Common Council members decided to table their vote until they were able to view a complete copy of the proposal. The proposal will be reviewed and voted on in March. According to Van Cort, there was support among Common Council members for the proposal. Van Cort expressed his excitement about the project. “We are on the threshold of that island being totally transformed,” he said. According to Mayor Carolyn Peterson, the plans for multiuse buildings and a waterfront that will allow people to enjoy the lake are two of the benefits that development will bring. “One of the next steps will be to have a request for proposals from developers,” Peterson said. The Ithaca waterfront area has a long history of development, according to Van Cort. “That area had been used for transportation and industry for the 18th and half of the 19th centuries,” Van Cort said. The waterfront and surrounding area was home to barge and train transport areas. The train tracks cut through the valley of Ithaca, and the passenger station was what is now The Station restaurant. However, according to Van Cort, “all of that came to a halt in the ’60s.” In the 1960s, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began a flood control project “to relieve creek level flooding coming in from the south,” Van Cort said. In doing so, the artificial inlet island was created. The island contained land with what Van Cort called “jumbled” ownership, with some land owned by private parties and some land designated for park space. In order to develop the area into space that the community could use effectively, city officials first had to work on making the designated park land available for other use. “For thirty years we worked on alienating the park land on inlet island,” Van Cort said. Two other roadblocks stood in the way of developing the waterfront. The first of these was what was referred to as “the octopus,” or an area where eight major roads converged near the waterfront, causing many traffic problems. According to Van Cort, “the uncertainty about how to untangle this made it impossible to develop.” In a 1996-97 New York State Department of Transportation project, “the octopus” was untangled. “The first thing that was solved was that the road decisions were made,” Van Cort said. Once this project was finished, “the final thing we had to do was to consolidate ownership on Inlet Island,” he said. Some members of the community who use the inlet for water sports expressed concern at the announcement of the waterfront development. Last year, representatives from the Cornell rowing program went to the Common Council to express their concerns. Dan Roock, Cornell director of rowing said that rowers from Cornell, Ithaca College and the community objected to the effect that the land development would have on the shoreline and water use. “The stuff that goes on land really has no effect on us,” Roock said. One of the problems for rowers is a concrete wall that has been constructed as part of the walkway around the water. The redesign of the shoreline due to the wall affects the waves in the inlet. “The quality of the water we row on took a dive,” Roock said. Van Cort said that when the wall was built, “we made some compromises. We moved the wall back a couple of feet so you could put wave dissipaters on it.” He added that the wall does not directly interfere with the lanes rowers use, and thus is not a hindrance to rowers in the inlet. The decrease in water quality has not been debilitating for rowers. “The section of wall that was built. It didn’t shut us down,” Roock said. The other concern rowers brought up was the increase in traffic on the inlet brought about by the development. “As that area becomes more attractive, it draws in more motorboat traffic,” Roock said. “[The Inlet] gets a little more dangerous.” In order to solve the problem of unsafe water conditions, he hopes that guidelines for boaters are established and clearly posted around the inlet. Roock wishes that city officials had focused on “including people who use the waterway in the planning process.” However, he does believe the waterfront development has had many positive effects. Roock and other community members who use the inlet are eager to see more people enjoy the waterfront. “We think it would be great to have this access to the water,” he said.Archived article by Kate Cooper