In mid-December, Judge Barbara Miller issued an order requesting additional expert testimony in legal proceedings regarding a new sports training facility to be built at the University of California, Berkeley. To those watching the case closely, this development seems to favor the University as it shifts the debate over whether the new building is an addition or separate structure to the criteria found in the Calif. Building Code. UC has always maintained the design has met these guidelines.
The facility involves a planned $125 million Student Athletic High Performance Center (SAHPC) adjacent to the existing Memorial Stadium and would be funded by donors and surcharges. The new facility would allow athletes who currently train under the existing 1923 era stadium (and other athletes who currently have no facility) a modern and safer space. The existing stadium, incredibly, is bisected North to South by the overdue Hayward Fault. A quake with any of the 500 or so kids in the spaces below the seats of the 90 year old facility would certainly be deadly.
From the beginning, the University proposal ran into trouble. Three separate lawsuits in 2006 were filed with slightly different complaints; 1) a protest by the wealthy neighbors of Panoramic Hill (above the stadium), 2) a protest by the City of Berkeley (COB) and 3) a protest by the California Oaks Foundation (COF). A judge quickly consolidated the suits into a single case. This case has prevented the University from preceding with the project.
In addition to the lawsuit, in December of 2006, a group of protesters took to the trees in the area of the new building to prevent their removal. This has captured the public's attention and has been discussed in media from the NY Times to ABC Sports. The University could at any time remove them from the trees but did not see the point as the court case dragged on.
The school wants to remove about 100 trees, about two-thirds of the grove, to build the center. All but 3 or 4 trees were planted by the University. Of those 3 or 4, two will be moved, one is diseased. The new facility would be for school teams (not just football) such as women’s field hockey, lacrosse, and soccer, that train and play on fields adjacent to the stadium. Without locker rooms of their own, many of the women on these teams must change clothes in their cars to prepare for games and practice.
The nation had an amusing introduction to the event when Brent Musberger of ABC Sports took interest during the Cal vs Tennessee game trying to explain to a national audience what was going on in Berkeley:
It would be useful to step back a bit and see how we got here. Before the stadium was built, Strawberry Canyon was used primarily for horticulture and as a nature preserve.
Cal's Memorial Stadium was one of the first of the major stadiums built in the country. It was to be a memorial to soldiers who died in World War I. (Btw, a door prize if someone can find an ancient oak grove in the foreground of the new construction.)
Prior to construction of the stadium, the State of Calif. had the land earmarked as a reservoir.
Raising a few eyebrows (including mine), the University included a 915 space parking garage in the SAHPC proposal to go under a nearby soccer field. This would replace 545 odd spaces and bring 370 additional cars to the area. If this were simply for 7 game days a year the impact would be minimal, but it's not. The city of Berkeley has the interesting fact that the population in the year 2000 was very close to what it was in 1972. However, the number of cars had quadrupled (or something close). Households had increased their number of autos but primarily the University had expanded research and admin jobs significantly.
City of Berkeley
The COB has budgeted $250,000 for a lawsuit against the school. The strategy was essentially a shotgun approach, hoping something would stick. In the beginning, I believed the protest from the city was about cars and the garage. While this made sense, I was wrong. The University offered a compromise over the summer to only replace the parking that is existing - so no net increase in traffic. The COB didn't bite. I want to say that Mayor Tom Bates has found himself in an awkward situation. Not only is he an alumni, but he actually played for Cal’s last Rose Bowl team in the 1950’s. Was he simply caught between the twisted local political establishment and something he thought was reasonable? Perhaps, but I now think in addition, he's just not capable of real leadership.
The fact that the University offered a reasonable compromise this summer and Mayor Bates didn’t accept it made me realize the City’s position is being entirely driven by the wealthy residents on the hill above the stadium.
Panoramic Hill Residents
Reactionaries. Without question, they are directing the COB and Treesitters in this matter. They have one goal in life and that is for the 1923 stadium to go away. They are looking down on an aging stadium built on a fault believing it may be possible to obstruct the renovation process enough that a new stadium would need to be built at some distance away. In addition, they are ground zero for a Berkeley elitism that favors the schools purpose as providing a "pure" education. They look at the backgrounded role athletics play in a place like Harvard or Yale as a model.
From the beginning, they have provided material support for the Treesitters directly and indirectly through front groups (“Berkeley Grandmothers for the Oaks”). Incredibly, they even attempt to link the demonstration to the Civil Rights Movement in this recent email:
"Hey ya'll, come on down to the Oak Grove this Sunday December 16th at 2pm, and bring lots of non-perishable vegetarian food in bags, lots of water in jugs with handles, blankets and sleeping bags, and your singing voices and instruments. We're planning to sing songs from the Civil Rights Movement to the treesitters. It'll be an open mic and anyone and everyone can sing and perform. Hope to see you there!"
- from the Berkeley Grandmothers for the Oaks
Treesitters
Initially, the protesters stated it was an old growth/ancient Oak grove(or a “"a healthy, functioning native oak ecosystem."). When evidence emerged that proved otherwise, it became an Indian burial ground. But the burial ground idea hasn't gained much traction with the experts.
It then became a memorial grove about a World War I (nope, the memorial was the stadium). Most recently, the area has been referenced to a open/green space that needs to be defended (presumably an attempt to continue the protest after the trees have been cut).
Remarkably, the treesitters have aligned themselves with the wealthy residents of the nearby Panoramic Hill. These homeowners have been some of the people running food and supplies to the treesitters. A marriage of convenience of sorts. Now I’m going to go out on a limb (metaphorically) and say that this might not be as surprising as it may seem. A short time ago, one of the sitters fell from the tree and broke his wrist and ankle.
Note to Treesitters: If your going to use pseudonyms, wear masks and take on the persona of an anarchist, don't spill the beans and let it be known that your fromupstate New York, attended Hobart and played lacrosse.
In my mind, it was never about the trees. Every single day in the East Bay, older more significant trees are cut down (including by the COB). Nobody says a word. There had to be another reason. Last week my suspicions were confirmed. In an open letter to the Daily Cal two student treesitters - “Oak and Deodar” (btw, it is almost entirely non UC students who are involved with this protest) wrote the following:
The Oak Grove Tree-sit is an experiment in conscientious living. There is a wealth of wisdom and personal empowerment to be found when a decentralized group of folks come together to stick it to the man. The trees are teaching us how to coexist and how to love one another for the first time. We are learning to listen to one another’s needs, as well as the needs of the community....
…So what’s next? It’s time for the students to rise up and reclaim our public university. Every nuclear bomb in the history of this country, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki, has been designed, developed and managed by the University of California. Two new models of nuclear bombs are currently being developed. The university is also involved in spearheading the research of genetically modified biofuels and foods, animal vivisection and nanotechnology, all of which are destructive to life. The regents are sowing the seeds of planetary destruction for nothing more than personal financial gain.
I knew it. For the Treesitters, it was really about an opportunity to challenge the direction one of our top public universities has taken. It is a passive aggressive protest that doesn’t confront it’s prime focus.
Among the many problems with the Corporate/Public University partnerships, the fact that they have occurred without a public debate is the biggest. Just a short time ago there was the finalization of the agreement for a $500 million contract between Cal and British Petroleum to establish a “Energy Biosciences Institute” for research (some secret) onbio-fuels.
If it is these sorts of issues they are concerned with(or "sticking it to the man") the protest is worthless as the message is lost. If it's about the landscape trees, well, I'll gently say there are more important issues. I spent my undergrad at Cal in the 80’s and was on the front line of the Divestment demonstrations. The confrontations with the school and the police were intense. Some of us were arrested and put on busses while others sat and blocked the busses only to get clubbed. But apartheid had to go. Real people were suffering. It mattered.
Now, 20 years later, I find myself sympathetic with a conservative columnist who writes on the matter:
It's a Peter Pan protest. Activists go by kiddie names - Running Wolf, Redwood Mary, Midnight Matt. And they have a child's sense of what is important. In a world darkened by genocide, starvation and ignorance, they see fit to champion the cause of landscaped trees, which, by the way, UC has offered to replace on a 3-to-1 basis.
In short, the tree-sitters have picked an unworthy cause. Given Judge Miller's injunction, their squatting is irrelevant. They could work to make the world a better place, but they've chosen to waste other people's time and money.
Of course she left out Iraq (top of my list) but even so, we have had a pressing environmental crises around here recently:
Furthermore, because it’s near a fault, people have opposed the project because of perceived danger. Let me just say that one of the few areas of public safety that still works in this country is the institutional triangle of Engineers, Architects and State Building Code officials. Why don’t we just let them do there jobs? Not being on a fault combined with today's technology and codes will make this a safer building then most buildings in downtown Berkeley.
I want to make a few points and they are obvious:
- Protests must have a sense of proportion. A year of your life in tree the school planted 80 years ago? $250,000 of the city residents money? We have real problems in this world.
- Protests must have a clear and unchanging message. The message must be backed by evidence. Old growth? Burial ground? Parking?
- Your primary concern must be your message. The passive aggressive demonstration doesn’t do anybody any good. Whatever it is, say it. Life is short and we don't get too many opportunities to discuss the things that matter. Real change will never occur otherwise.