Earth Day Overshadowed by plans to destroy ‘Central Park of UCF’
News, Politics, UCF Administration — By Staff on April 25, 2011 at 11:12 amUCF’s second annual Earth Day Celebration, held Friday on Memory Mall, was overshadowed by a rally of students fighting to stop UCF from destroying what some are calling the “Central Park of UCF,” even though 87 percent of students voted they want it saved.
The area located near the Libra dorms is known as the UCF Arboretum, and it’s the last large area of natural green space left in UCF’s academic core. The area is protected, but UCF has asked the state’s St. Johns River Water Management District to strip the status and exchange it for green space on the outskirts of campus activists say isn’t easily accessible and is already too swampy to build on anyway.
Despite the overwhelming show of support from students to save the arboretum, Summer Singletary with UCF’s Student Sustainability Alliance believes UCF plans to defy the student voice and eventually bulldoze the arboretum anyway.
“UCF says it’s not their business anymore to consider student opinion,” Singletary told KnightNews.com after the Earth Day rally she organized.
When KnightNews.com was among the first to break UCF’s plans to have the arboretum’s protected status removed, UCF defended its request to “swap” the protected land in the core of campus for land on the outskirts of campus.
“The proposed swap area currently is in much better ecological condition than the area being released, and it serves as a buffer between campus and the Little Econ River,” UCF’s spokesman, Grant Heston, said in a statement in January.
Singletary plans to keep fighting to save the arboretum, which for decades has served as an outdoor classroom for students.
“We want to get people involved so we can continue to pressure the university so we can keep the arboretum, which is a very valuable educational center on campus for many students.”
UCF has not yet announced what it would like to do with the property if it gets released, and a spokesman told KnightNews.com that there are no plans for the site at this point.
In an email response to KnightNews.com seeking comment on this story today, UCF Spokesman Grant Heston said, “UCF has hosted forums for students to share their views and to hear from UCF about the proposal and why it benefits the environment and our campus.”
KnightNews.com was not made aware of these forums, so we cannot show you any video coverage from them.
Heston said the swap will provide UCF flexibility in how to best serve students in the future. Check back to KnightNews.com for continuing coverage on this major story on campus.
Tweet This
Digg This
Share on Facebook
Stumble it
11 Comments
All of you should actually read the facts and statements about what is going on before you think the WHOLE arboretum is going to be destroyed.
They want to clear 8 acres out of the current 80+ to make room for more academic sites if needed. They will also be ADDING 17 acres on the Lake Claire side in order to compensate.
lol who has seen the arboretum lately? there are like six trees lol. it looks like a waste of space.
Is there any way someone can sign the petition now?
In response to Student,
I do not see the point of a conservation easement if it can just be lifted after a few years pass. The proposed swap land has been said to be more ecologically viable, but this is only because UCF mis-managed the current Arboretum land. I do not believe the land should continue to be degraded because uf UCF’s negligence. Let us also note that UCF’s 2010 Master Plan had the proposed swap land listed under conservation already.
The current location of the 7.58 acres is easily accessible to students, and is currently used for an array education purposes. Many classes have and continue to require students to dedicate time at the Arboretum. I believe the relocation of the Arboretum to a further location would make it less accessible to students, as well as threaten current projects like the organic community garden.
It would be interesting to hear the surrounding UCF community’s opinion (including teachers, faculty, and neighbors). Perhaps they deserve a vote too for investing in the Arboretum (both time and money), and because they are affected by the congestion and overcrowding of UCF. UCF had promised months ago to have a community forum, and has yet to do so.
correction:
that should read “9,000 students”
correction: 9,000.
Skuba,
Following the same logic in your statement it should also be obvious to you that in the way that >9,000 students voting in favor of keeping the Arboretum from certain destruction is an inconsequential number, you are in even less a position as a single individual to suggest that this is in any way a moot issue. And when a 10,000-student voter turnout is one of the strongest in recent UCF history, it’s hard to make the judgment that all those who didn’t vote simply don’t care about this–they probably weren’t planning to vote anyway. And are you not then also calling into question all the other referendums and offices passed by voters? The McCann/Brock pres./v.p. ticket won with even fewer votes (a mere 61.7%).
But the numbers here are not even worth discussing in relation to the larger issues at hand. It remains that the corridor of power at our university, which has made tired attempts at being democratic, is not concerned with the voice of the students, and by extension, with that of faculty and the surrounding community, who also have a stake in the Arboretum as many make use of the facilities donating time, labor, and knowledge.
I urge you, inform yourself on the ongoing situation. Knight News has actually been following the story for some time now. Read they’re archived stories. No doubt they see this as important information for the student body and the community at large to concern themselves with.
Skuba,
Following the same logic in your statement it should also be obvious to you that in the way that >9,000 students voting in favor of keeping the Arboretum from certain destruction is an inconsequential number, you are in even less a position as a single individual to suggest that this is in any way a moot issue. And when a 10,000-student voter turnout is one of the strongest in recent UCF history, it’s hard to make the judgment that all those who didn’t vote simply don’t care about this–they probably weren’t planning to vote anyway. And are you not then also calling into question all the other referendums and offices passed by voters? The McCann/Brock pres./v.p. ticket won with even fewer votes (a mere 61.7%).
But the numbers here are not even worth discussing in relation to the larger issues at hand. It remains that the corridor of power at our university, which has made tired attempts at being democratic, is not concerned with the voice of the students, and by extension, with that of faculty and the surrounding community, who also have a stake in the Arboretum as many make use of the facilities donating time, labor, and knowledge.
I urge you, inform yourself on the ongoing situation. Knight News has actually been following the story for some time now. Read they’re archived stories. No doubt they see this as important information for the student body and the community at large to know.
During presidential elections, CNN, FOX etc, all say 55% approve or disapprove of the president on xyz.
Those polls have a much smaller sample size than 10,000.
Statistically speaking, the SGA election Knightnews is citing holds more weight regarding the student’s will than these other polls cited by the “real media” during “real elections.”
Polls use a sample of students to reflect the overall will of the student. If 87% of 10,000 students voted to save the arboretum in an SGA election, then chances are 87% of 56,000 feel the same way, within a few percentage points margin of error.
Also, the “voting measure” did not mention the history of abuse UCF has shown in defying the protected status/fines. I bet more would have voted for to save the arboretum, had they known the history of destruction UCF committed.
First of all, only about 17% of the student body voted, so it can only be said that 15% of the student population voted to keep the arboretum as is.
Also, the “voting measure” did not mention the option of moving the arboretum to a different location. I would have voted for that option had I known that was the other option.
Your article states that 87% of students voted to save this patch of land, when less than 10,000 students voted in the first place. That 87% is of a population that represents around 1/6 the schools total population, so don’t try and make it sound like every student voted and 50,000 students wanted to save it. If you want to take into account the 8,700 that voted for it compared to the around 56,000 students, that would be about 15% of the student population.
If a majority of students really cared about what happens to that piece of land, more would have voted in the first place. Major story on campus? I disagree.