This morning, UCF received a Tree Campus USA award from the Arbor Foundation. Arriving over 30 minutes late to the award ceremony, UCF President Dr. Hitt accepted this award on behalf of the entire university, but many of the students in attendance were opposed to hypocritically accepting the award.
Currently, the UCF Administration is filing a petition to St. John's River Management District to reconsider the current determination status of the 7.8 acre plot within the arboretum. The current determination is 'wetland.' If St John's finds that the current determination status is invalid due to the damage done by both natural (hurricane) and unnatural involvement (UCF Administration illegally violating the terms of the lands's Conservation Easement), the land is 1 step closer to the lifting of the conservation easement--which means there will no longer be legal obstacles preventing UCF from beginning construction.
Earlier this week, UCF students voted 87.81% in favor of "the continued conservation, protection, and current determination status of the 7.85 acre area of the UCF Arboretum". Did UCF Administration listen to the student's input? Nope.
The night before receiving the Tree Campus USA award, UCF Vice President William Merk came to the weekly UCF Student Government Senate meeting to discuss the referendum's results. When asked if the UCF Administration planned on aborting the petition to St. John's Water Management District to reconsider the current determination status of the Arboretum, Merk said that the UCF Administration was continuing with petition process (despite the student's opposition), and that it would be up to St. John's Water Management District to consider the student's input. This is yet again another example of how the UCF Administration is running purely on their own agenda--blatantly ignoring the input of the UCF Students and Faculty.
The reconsideration of the determination status is costing UCF $7,020. That's $7,000 that the student's don't want to spend.
Before ceremoniously handing the award to Dr. Hitt, the Arbor Foundation gave a brief presentation outlining the economic and social benefits of trees. Instead of mentioning the obvious environmental necessity that trees create (reducing carbon dioxide, providing natural forest habitats for animals), they started by spitting out statistics that show an increased number of sales at merchants who plant trees outside their urban market places.
Fortunately, the student's voices were not silenced.
Student and community representatives came and distributed material to those in attendance that outlined the history of UCF's many illegal breaches of the conservation easement. Throughout the presentation, the students stood respectfully in protest of the hypocrisy holding a "Save The Arboretum" banner, which was signed by dozens of Student Organizations during the campaign for the referendum. When Dr. Patrick Bohlen (Director of Landscape and Natural Resources at UCF) said his closing remarks, the students in attendance were informed that Q&A was *not* part of the agenda.
On one hand, UCF Administration is planting 300 new trees in urban landscaping.
On the other hand, UCF Administration is pursuing the lifting of the conservation easement on the Arboretum, which would allow for the destruction of 7.8 acres of trees that the students have voted to protect.
Hypocrisy? I think so. Green washing? You bet.
excellent article!! The meeting this morning was a disgrace. Students keep this school running and students need to have a say in what the school does with OUR money. If the arboretum is destroyed against popular student vote (not to mention environmental ethics) then whats next?
ReplyDeleteSo, if UCF's actions in violation of the current determination status actually HELPS it change the status to something it wants? Talk about ass-backwards bullshit.
ReplyDeleteSo trees produce CO2 ehh? I guess we should just go ahead and cut them all down so that we can prevent global warming. When did this remarkable information first come to your attention? I would appreciate you letting me know your source so that I can let the rest of the world know that we need to destroy all of our trees.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThank you for bringing this error to our attention. I believe it was Mr. van Dort's intention to note that trees "reduce" instead of "produce" carbon dioxide. It has been corrected, and I most humbly apologize for the lack of editorial expertise that was directed towards this article. I will do my best to ensure that a greater degree of diligence is afforded to the proofreading of our articles.
Regards,
Hanen Wuifde Indruisen