The Famous Windmill at Stony Brook Southampton

Additional reporting by Katie Watt 

Facing yet another round of state budget cuts, Stony Brook University took the drastic step of announcing that by summer’s end, the Stony Brook Southampton campus would no longer operate as a semi-independent college, leaving the school’s 500 students to find a new university by the fall. 

“Everything will continue until August 31,” said University President Samuel Stanley. “But after that time, this won’t be a residential campus any further.” 

The news was met with anger, sadness and frustration from the campus community, a close-knit group of students and faculty. Students were given no notice of the university’s decision until an article was published on the hyper local online news site 27east.com the night before the official announcement. President Stanley began his remarks by apologizing for the way the campus found out about the news, saying that it was the intention of the administration to make the announcement themselves on Thursday. 

That did little to quiet students though. Many in the audience demanded to know why the decision-making process was kept a secret. The administration has been aware of the budget cuts for many months, and the discussions about possible cuts at Southampton had been ongoing for weeks. 

“It just happened so quickly, I really don’t know how I was supposed to react,” said Elliott Kurtz, a freshman at Southampton. 

“I found out about this at 9 o clock last night. I thought it was a joke,” said Amanda Sylvester, a sophomore. “We were never asked. We were never given the opportunity to try and change this.” 

The effective closure of the 81-acre campus will save an estimated $6.7 million per year, or approximately 20% of the total amount of the most recent cuts to Stony Brook, according to Stanley. Administration officials also made it clear that Southampton cuts were a last resort, having already trimmed the budget elsewhere. The main campus has endured numerous cuts since the current state budget crisis began in 2008, and the Manhattan campus was cut in half as well, from two floors to one. 

None of this was any comfort to students, who charged that the salaries of the administrators on the stage could make a serious dent in the $6.7 million needed annually to keep Southampton open. President Stanley alone makes $650,000 a year, and the combined salaries of those on stage totaled over $1.4 million based on 2008 figures. 

There was also animosity over the number of visits paid to Southampton by President Stanley. He estimated that he had made the hour-long trip between three and five times since he began at Stony Brook in July, but students didn’t sound convinced with those estimates. 

“Its hard to say how much he actually fought for us because we didn’t see any of that process,” said Kurtz. 

The timing of the administration’s decision is particularly tricky for students who are not graduating this year. All Southampton students will be welcomed at the main campus, but transferring to another university will be difficult, especially since many deadlines have already passed. At NYU, Penn State and Cornell for example, deadlines for transfer students passed as long ago as February 1. Other universities, like Hofstra, accept transfer applications on a rolling basis but encourage early applications. Albany and Binghamton, both fellow SUNY campuses, are still accepting transfer applications.

Bulldozing a publicly funded classroom at one of the nation’s best public universities to make room for a corporate hotel is another matter entirely.

Salamanders like this one are a part of the living laboratory that will be torn down when construction of the hotel begins.

But in a manner of speaking, that is exactly what is being proposed here at Stony Brook. The “classroom” doesn’t have walls or desks, but the woods by the main entrance of the university do serve as a living laboratory for thousands of students.

Caitlin Fisher-Reid is one of those students. She is a PhD candidate in the Department of Ecology and Evolution whose dissertation on the evolutionary processes of the terrestrial woodland salamander will be significantly impacted should construction on the property begin before she completes her research in two years.

The 13-acre plot of land appropriated for the hotel is one of Fisher-Reid’s most successful field sites for her research, out of 30 other locations across Suffolk County.

“I consider it one of my high quality sites because every time I go there I find salamanders,” she said.

For two years, from March to mid-November, Fisher-Reid has been taking expeditions into the forest twice a week to find salamanders and take various measurements of environmental factors and the creatures themselves.

The focus of Fisher-Reid’s dissertation, color variations (or morphs) within the same species, makes the site even more valuable. That particular forest is home to one of the best contact zones between two color morphs of the species, she says.

“My project has the potential to generate a lot of long term monitoring of these salamanders and of the environment in general,” said Fisher-Reid.

While Fisher-Reid may be the biggest beneficiary of the forest, its educational significance is felt by many more students and faculty on campus.

“Beyond the scope of my dissertation, the forest is used,” she said. “Once I leave, the forest is still going to be used.”

Catherine Graham, a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution, is constantly looking for ways to provide students with real world examples of what is discussed in class, and the forest provides the best window for doing just that.

The current proposal calls for a five-story building to accommodate 135 rooms, a 5000 square foot conference center, an indoor pool, and a restaurant, exercise facility and sundry shop.

The hotel will be built on a ground lease from the state, as indicated by the blue outline.

The structure itself would be a predominantly brick building much like the Humanities building, and located nearby. It will be built opposite the Administration building parking garage, on the far side of Circle Road.

A private company, like Holiday Inn or Marriott, would run the hotel, but exactly which company will be operating the hotel has yet to be formally announced. Because the hotel would be on state property, a ground lease had to be acquired before any private corporation could pursue building.

Plans for a hotel on campus have been discussed and debated for years, but have never been actively pursued until now because of various concerns raised by faculty, staff and community members over the environmental and aesthetic impact a new structure would have.

The Campus Environment Committee was informed of the decision, made formally by President Samuel L. Stanley at the University Senate meeting on October 5, on Tuesday, and the reaction was largely negative.

“We’re disappointed in the decision,” said newly elected committee chair John Robinson.

The committee has been keenly aware of the proposal to build an on-campus hotel for years, and has fought the plans on several fronts. Malcolm Bowman, another member of the committee, addressed the concern surrounding the location of the hotel.

“It seems like there was never a serious effort to get another ground lease,” he said, speaking of the current lease that has already been approved by the state. “[The committee] has consistently opposed a hotel at the entrance to the university.”

Unless the university files for another ground lease elsewhere on campus, the current location will be the only possible option for a privately owned hotel.

Amy Provenzano, Executive Director of Environmental Stewardship at Stony Brook University, assured the committee members that their concerns had been taken into account when the floor plans for the hotel were drawn up and approved by President Stanley.

“The university has been very supportive and has listened to the committee,” she said.

The university indeed has commissioned an environmental impact study for the proposal, and Provenzano says that the hotel “[would] be built sustainably.”

But the current plans do not call for the hotel to meet LEED standards, a rating system that measures the environmental sustainability of construction projects. Former President Shirley Strum Kenny had previously stated that all new university buildings—though not necessarily non-university buildings like a privately owned hotel—would be built to LEED Silver, the lowest rating in the system.

The hotel would be accessible from Circle Road, directly across from the back entrance of the Administration building parking lot. At five stories, it would likely be visible from Nicolls Road and certainly be visible from the main entrance to the West Campus, a fact that concerned members of the Campus Environment Committee.

While the hotel plans will be moving forward, smaller details about the new building are still being debated, including the placement of signage and the exact amount of open space provided. A parking lot that circles the hotel would be buffered by green space.

When asked just how far along the plans are for the new hotel, and whether the hotel will be happening one way or another, Provenzano responded simply: “yes.”

The new eco friendly technology has spurred ideas from well-established companies, along with making new companies with products devoted entirely to conservation and renewable energy.

The Motorola Renew

Motorola revealed the world’s first “carbon neutral” mobile phone, “The Renew.” The Renew leaves no carbon footprint and boasts zero carbon emissions. Of course this may not necessarily apply to the manufacturing process of the phone, but that’s another story. The Renew’s casing is made of 100% recycled plastic and is said to be 100% recyclable when you’ve moved on to your next eco-friendly phone. The Renew is currently being sold through T-Mobile.

Green Plug, a new energy-conscious company, unveiled its Innergie charger. The charger works in two ways: it’s a universal charger, which is meant to reduce the need for multiple (and therefore wasteful) specific power chargers for each electronic device, and its innovative charging interface. The interface is designed to stop power consumption once objects are shut off.  The Innergie can completely shut off power to a connected device once it is fully charged and does not require power. This will be very useful to the more green-minded of us that constantly have to remove plugs around the house once they’re done being used. Green Plug’s ultimate goal is to eliminate the need for separate chargers entirely, which become wasteful over time.

Energizer's new solar powered universal charger.

Solar power was a huge trend for gadget makers, big and small. Energizer unveiled its new Rechargeable Solar Charger. It can charge AA and AAA batteries and has a USB port to charge your iPod and any other USB devices using only solar power. It does, however, include an AC adapter in case there’s extended sunless weather.

Voltaic went to CES with its already popular line of solar-powered backpacks and messenger bags. These bags are designed to charge most laptops and any USB charged device while you’re walking out in the sun.  The bags themselves are also made of 100% recycled material. Their bags, however, usually cost around $200-$500. But if you’re willing to dish out the cash it’s a good way to stay powered and green at the same time.

While all of these products indicate a general movement towards greener technology, the products displayed at CSE this year – many of them small appliance chargers and entertaining gadgets — are still a far cry from the more affective innovations we truly need to become more eco-friendly. Many of these products will not make a significant impact unless almost every consumer were to use these objects. On top of that, other companies that are promising greener products are in fact still taking shortcuts in an attempt to make a quick buck. Fuji is marketing a new “eco-friendly” line of batteries, the EnviroMAX battery. Fuji is pulling out all the stops to market these batteries to the eco-conscious consumer, even trumpeting the recycled paper that it is packaged in.  Now, it is true that these batteries do not contain any harmful materials such as mercury and cadmium and that the factories that produce them are “some of the world’s most eco-friendly battery plants, operating under some of the most strict standards of environmental responsibility” according to their website  However, the fact that they are simply newer, slightly more efficient versions of old technology rather than something, for example, renewable, does nothing to alleviate the already large amount of batteries that are often not recycled properly. These batteries are said to break down over a course of 1000 years, and yet Fuji claims that it’s perfectly fine to throw into a landfill!

The level technology and innovation demanded by the “green” community is still not present from this year’s CES. What’s more, the gadgets that have a chance at making a difference are still out of the price range of the average consumer. Thankfully the demand is growing fast enough that the major companies are taking notice. Perhaps 2010 will be the year that the tech world goes truly green. We can only hope.