Perspectives

It's about time

University wins court battle over athletic center

By Melissa Solin
From the September 2008 Print Edition

One would suspect that most people have more important things to do with their lives than spend all their time simply sitting…in trees. Perhaps going to school, holding a job? This is apparently not the case for a small group of tree sitters who have illegally occupied the Oak Grove near UC Berkeley’s Memorial Stadium since December 2006. The protesters have been willing to abandon civilization and personal hygiene to stand up for their cause, to make a statement, and to save the environment!

Are they really saving anything though? Are they really making some kind of bold statement? Most of us just think they’re crazy. Honestly, it is forty-four trees. I guess only we rational people can see that forty-four trees will make no difference in the long run.

Thankfully, on July 22, 2008, Judge Barbara Miller, who has been presiding over the litigation on this case, issued a ruling in favor of the University. The ruling upheld the university’s plans to build a four story athletic center near Memorial Stadium. The ruling also ordered the plaintiffs (the city of Berkeley, the California Oak Foundation, and the Panoramic Hill Association) to pay eighty-five percent of the university’s legal fees.

The ruling specified that the injunction preventing construction on the proposed site was to be lifted on July 29th. In a closed session, the Berkeley City Council decided that the city would not appeal the ruling. The city can still appeal the ruling within 58 days of the court decision, but it appears unlikely that there are sufficient votes on the city council to approve such an appeal.

The Panoramic Hill Association and the California Oaks Foundation on the other hand did appeal the court decision. The Panoramic Hill Association also filed a motion asking Judge Miller to vacate her decision and allow a new trial. As a result of the appeals, the injunction preventing construction on the site was extended until August 13th. The plaintiffs must show the appeals court why they feel it is necessary for the injunction to remain in place during the appeals process. If the injunction is lifted, the university can begin construction on the athletic center even if the appeals process is still ongoing. As of the writing of this article on August 6th, the decision from the appeals court regarding the injunction is still pending.

Although in most situations it appears to be impossible to get Berkeley students to completely agree on anything, it seems to me that there is a general consensus when it comes to the tree sitters. The consensus is that they have long overstayed their welcome and most people are sick of them. Student Trey Williamson bluntly states, “These tree sitters have pushed the university back hundreds of thousands of dollars; maybe more as time progresses. It seems like now-a-days all anyone has to do is get into a tree and the gears stop moving. In many ways the worst part wasn’t that they were up there, but that no one grew the balls to go up and get them down before they could make it into a fortress.” I could not agree more.

When asked what he thinks of the tree sitters, student Allen Tan simply responded, “I’d like them to fall off.” When asked to elaborate, he said, “Fall off a branch, and hit the ground.” In all honesty, I don’t think he meant those words literally, but he did present the general sentiment among many students who are sick of the tree sitters’ presence and never want to see them again. Put simply, they have been a nuisance.

While they might think their cause is noble, it’s easy to see that many of their sentiments are incorrectly reasoned. For example, they wrote on the sidewalk “Guantanamo Berkeley”, comparing their “incarceration” with that of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Apparently no one has pointed out to them that unlike the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, they are free to leave at any time. Furthermore, since the protesters are trespassing on University property, the police have the right to enforce any edicts about keeping trespassers away, including the prevention of food being passed to them.

So, although there is finally a concrete answer: “Yes, you can finally build your glorious athletic facility!”, it looks as though the hippies and their supporters will once again attempt to slow things down through endless litigation. Regardless, it appears now that the university will ultimately prevail in this matter. And who knows, when the day comes to finally cut down the trees, the protesters will probably sacrifice themselves by lying in front of the bulldozers or something equally silly. But I wouldn’t want to be the one to give them any ideas…

Respond to letters@californiapatriot.org

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot