News -> INDReporter MON, NOV 29 11:29AM by Mary Tutwiler

UL may save two oaks

Since Independent intern and University of Louisiana Lafayette journalism student Hope Rurik broke the story two weeks ago (Paving Paradise) that six mature live oaks will be felled on campus in order to build new dorms and parking towers, there’s been a push back from student and community groups to save the doomed trees.

Last week, students met with UL President Joseph Savoie to discuss the plans. Felicita “Flitzy” Wilhelm, a 21-year-old junior studying environmental and sustainable resources, told The Advocate that talks to “save at least one or two of the trees” are ongoing.

While talks are proceeding, there’s not much time left for the trees because the project is slated to begin immediately following finalization of the funding and construction contracts, in mid-December.

Part of the master plan includes planting five new live oaks to replace the lost giants.

While new planting is good for the campus and the city, it doesn’t really replace a mature tree. “People are saying they’re not the century oaks, so what’s the big deal,” Wilhelm told The Advocate. “But how are we going to get more century oaks when we cut them down at 50 or 60 years old?”



Comments (9)add
...
written by Seth Chelette , November 29, 2010 - 06:14 pm
We need to rant to Hoyt Harris, I say tie a yellow ribbon around that old oak tree and "Let It Be".
...
written by Seth Chelette , November 29, 2010 - 06:20 pm
We need to rant to Hoyt Harris, I say tie a yellow ribbon around that old oak tree and "Let It Be".
...
written by concerned for one's rights , November 29, 2010 - 09:22 pm
Why when someone wants to cut down an oak on ones private property, the city and state stops them due to saving the tree. however, when the city or any other government such as UL does it, its their decision and no one elses.

JUST PLAN WRONG
...
written by RODEOCLOWN , November 29, 2010 - 09:31 pm
UL had property off of Johnston St--the old horse farm--where a
student living complex could have been built for the students. The property is large enough to build enough student apartments to last UL for years to come. Unfortunately, the UL administration "traded" the property with either the parish or the state for properties somewhere else. Why couldn't the expansion have been built there? UL, based on this article, has been cognizant of UL's need for additional student housing for years. Why then would the administration trade away prime property when the university was in such dire need of new living facilities?
So much for "higher" administration.

...
written by stu , November 30, 2010 - 04:37 am
Rodeoclown:

I don't know how familiar you are with Lafayette geography, but the Horse Farm is over a mile from UL's campus. I hardly think the solution to UL's lack of on-campus housing would have been to build housing a mile from said campus. Also, there are live oaks on the horse farm property. Who is to say that their fate would have been any different than the trees now facing the swift axe of progress? A new dining hall would have to be built to go with the dorms so the students wouldn't have to walk miles at a time to eat at campus facilities, and there would have to be parking lots and all kinds of ancillary facilities.

Concerned for one's rights:

I don't know the circumstances under which the state or city can prevent one from tearing down an oak tree on private property, but I can say that I have oak trees torn down on private property on several occasions.

There is a vacant lot on South College, one house down from Girard Park drive, on which several mature live oaks once stood. They were all cut down to build a parking lot for an office park that never materialized.

There is also an Advance Auto Parts on the Evangeline Thruway. It stands on property once shaded by mature live oak trees. When it was built, citizens raised a stir and it was proposed that an ordinance protecting live oak trees be enacted. The ordinance was voted down; the trees were sent to the wood chipper.

Finally, to everyone:

UL has planted dozens and dozens of oak trees. UL tends them and preserves them. Why must we pretend that UL is clear-cutting campus? No century oaks will be cut down. For every tree that is removed, five more will be planted. To say "well how can we ever get new century oaks if we cut down the sixty year old trees" is ridiculous. UL planted all of those century oaks. UL has planted numerous oaks since then. UL wants to remove a measly six trees, two of which will have to be cut down anyway because they are diseased. That means four healthy trees must be sacrificed. How many trees have been sacrificed to print The Independent? More than four, I would imagine.
...
written by ragin_cajun , November 30, 2010 - 01:30 pm
There are fundamental principles that must be upheld in a free society. The MOST fundamental is property rights. If an individual, or group of individuals, does not control the property that they have traded goods and services to own, then all other rights are up for grabs, too.

Whether or not UL and the owners of the lots on the Thruway and South College are good stewards is irrelavent. What is SUPREMELY relavent is whether those property owners are able to truly control the property that they own.

Not one of the commenters has even mentioned that UL owns property, and just like any other property owner, has the right to use that property as they see fit. If no one is left to champion REAL rights, if no one even knows the difference anymore, if "activists" decide how OWNERS will use their property, then our society has become a thinly veiled free-for-all, where the loudest gang gets whatever it screams for.

If a group of people want to band together and ask the University to do things differently to spare the trees, that's one thing. But a "legal" remedy, or any other action by government to affect the University's decision in this is very dangerous.


...
written by recycle , November 30, 2010 - 03:25 pm
"How many trees have been sacrificed to print The Independent? More than four, I would imagine."
-------------------------------------------

Be green like me. Recycle the IND and use it to wipe. I especially look forward to "recycling" Wally Pierce's editorials.


...
written by Walter Pierce , November 30, 2010 - 03:49 pm
I'm flattered, recycle. Flattered.
...
written by LookSomeThings , November 30, 2010 - 04:07 pm
Cutting down these trees has far-reaching consequences. Like where would beginner photographers shoot their clients' engagement pictures? They can't ALL shoot near the museum waterfall. Plus, if we cut down the trees and build a parking lot, students won't be able to perpetually complain about having to take the bus to Cajun Field, which is a time-honored tradition. We should save the trees just like we saved the horse farm. Can you imagine a Sunday afternoon pre-horse farm? I can't. (I love getting arrested for trespassing on Sundays.)
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in using your Facebook account or register if you do not have an account yet.

busy 
LA LA Land
Advertisement
Most Read
Advertisement
Advertisement
in case you missed it