jsc1953
02-01-2007, 05:22 PM
First, full disclosure:I'm an unabashed football fan. What's good for the University of California Golden Bears is good for me. But reasonable people of any persuasion have got to admit that what's going on in Berkeley is a case of the inmates running the asylum.
The background: the U of C was founded in 1868, in empty land north of Oakland, and a city grew up around it. In 1923 they built a gorgeous football stadium, called by Sports Illustrated the most beautiful place in the country to take in a game. But its facilities (locker rooms, training rooms, meeting rooms) are cramped and deteriorating, and a detriment to recruiting. And its built on an earthquake fault.
So the U put together a plan to remodel, in 2 phases: (1) new, expanded facilities (including classrooms) adjoining the stadium, and (2) a seismic retrofit for the stadium. They performed all the required seismic studies and environmental impact reports; raised money privately; and got the Regents to sign off.
And that's when the loonies came out of the woodwork. No fewer than 4 lawsuits were filed to halt the project. In decreasing order of sanity, they are:
1. The City of Berkeley. Their suit is based on seismic issues: they object to construction so near an earthquake fault, and argue that the city's resources would be impacted should a natural disaster occur. Well jeez, guys…if you're so concerned about safety, maybe you would get behind the effort to improve the existing facilities, to make them more earthquake-safe. The real issue, though, is that Berkeley does not like being a college town. They resent the University, and they hate the crowds that a football game brings in. The perfect solution from the city's standpoint would be if the University tore down the stadium and built another one, in some other town. Football detracts from the city's real mission -- regulating nanotechnology (http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2006/12/12/tech-nano.html).
2. The homeowners association. Again, citing seismic concerns, but in actuality it's pure NIMBY behavior. They bought homes next to a football stadium, and now they're annoyed if people actually want to use that stadium (6 times a year).
3. The California Oaks foundation. The expanded facilities would require removal of 40 oak trees from a grove adjoining the stadium. The University's plans call for 3 trees to be planted for every one cut down. The trees are not unique or endangered (there's about a billion of them in California), and it's not a habitat for any endangered species. But, as of last December, we've got nutcases tree-sitting to protest the removal of these "ancient" trees. This is actually the most insidious of the protests, as it gets tons of coverage on the local news. They're allowed to spread lies -- unchallenged by the local media, so I pit them, too --that the trees are "hundreds" of years old, when they were actually planted at the time the stadium was built. So this protest is challenging the right of the University to maintain its own landscaping.
4. Save Tightwad Hill (this is classic). The hill overlooking the stadium provides surprisingly good sightlines, for free. It's a Berkeley tradition for some "tightwads" to clamber up on the hill to enjoy the game. The stadium renovation will partially block those sightlines, unfortunately. Too bad, right? Buy a ticket? Naw -- sue. An organization has been formed to block the construction, so that this group's "right" to free football viewing will not be impeded.
Personally, I think #3 and #4 are just stalking-horses for #2.
If you think these suits were laughed out of court, you'd be wrong. A judge issued an injunction on Monday, stopping construction until the court case(s) are resolved. The delay will cost the University an extra $10 million.
Here's a recap (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/29/BAG69NQN3S1.DTL)
Feh.
The background: the U of C was founded in 1868, in empty land north of Oakland, and a city grew up around it. In 1923 they built a gorgeous football stadium, called by Sports Illustrated the most beautiful place in the country to take in a game. But its facilities (locker rooms, training rooms, meeting rooms) are cramped and deteriorating, and a detriment to recruiting. And its built on an earthquake fault.
So the U put together a plan to remodel, in 2 phases: (1) new, expanded facilities (including classrooms) adjoining the stadium, and (2) a seismic retrofit for the stadium. They performed all the required seismic studies and environmental impact reports; raised money privately; and got the Regents to sign off.
And that's when the loonies came out of the woodwork. No fewer than 4 lawsuits were filed to halt the project. In decreasing order of sanity, they are:
1. The City of Berkeley. Their suit is based on seismic issues: they object to construction so near an earthquake fault, and argue that the city's resources would be impacted should a natural disaster occur. Well jeez, guys…if you're so concerned about safety, maybe you would get behind the effort to improve the existing facilities, to make them more earthquake-safe. The real issue, though, is that Berkeley does not like being a college town. They resent the University, and they hate the crowds that a football game brings in. The perfect solution from the city's standpoint would be if the University tore down the stadium and built another one, in some other town. Football detracts from the city's real mission -- regulating nanotechnology (http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2006/12/12/tech-nano.html).
2. The homeowners association. Again, citing seismic concerns, but in actuality it's pure NIMBY behavior. They bought homes next to a football stadium, and now they're annoyed if people actually want to use that stadium (6 times a year).
3. The California Oaks foundation. The expanded facilities would require removal of 40 oak trees from a grove adjoining the stadium. The University's plans call for 3 trees to be planted for every one cut down. The trees are not unique or endangered (there's about a billion of them in California), and it's not a habitat for any endangered species. But, as of last December, we've got nutcases tree-sitting to protest the removal of these "ancient" trees. This is actually the most insidious of the protests, as it gets tons of coverage on the local news. They're allowed to spread lies -- unchallenged by the local media, so I pit them, too --that the trees are "hundreds" of years old, when they were actually planted at the time the stadium was built. So this protest is challenging the right of the University to maintain its own landscaping.
4. Save Tightwad Hill (this is classic). The hill overlooking the stadium provides surprisingly good sightlines, for free. It's a Berkeley tradition for some "tightwads" to clamber up on the hill to enjoy the game. The stadium renovation will partially block those sightlines, unfortunately. Too bad, right? Buy a ticket? Naw -- sue. An organization has been formed to block the construction, so that this group's "right" to free football viewing will not be impeded.
Personally, I think #3 and #4 are just stalking-horses for #2.
If you think these suits were laughed out of court, you'd be wrong. A judge issued an injunction on Monday, stopping construction until the court case(s) are resolved. The delay will cost the University an extra $10 million.
Here's a recap (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/29/BAG69NQN3S1.DTL)
Feh.