The university waits until the clock ticks down to Aug. 13 in the next battle between bear and tree. And now they’re asking for a $28 million bond if an appeal goes through court.

Back after Judge Barbara J. Miller ruled in the last court case, the tree-sit supporters had the option to appeal. While the city of Berkeley backed out from appealing, the California Oak Foundation and the Panoramic Hill Association went ahead and filed their appeal. The panel of appellate judges is expected to rule by Aug. 13.

In the meantime, the latest injunction against construction holds until the ruling comes out. If the appeal gets thrown out, it’ll probably be game-over for the tree-sitters, and the university will want to clear them out in time for the first football game on Aug. 30. Maybe this year they’ll get to save face instead of host a zoo exhibit of poo-slingers.

And if the appeal gets the OK? The university wants a $28 million bond from the California Oak Foundation and the Panoramic Hill Association, basically for wasting their time and money for 20 months now. It’s time to dig into that trust fund, tree-people. And, you know, we hear that Berkeley homes fetch quite a penny.

The Chron got the beef from the tree-sit supporters:

“It’s shameful,” said Mary “Redwood Mary” Kaczorowski, a Berkeley environmental activist and longtime supporter of the protest. “The university is holding the community hostage by operating within these narrow confines. It’s unconscionable.”

Hostage? Hmm, funny, we never knew of hostages who had the ability to climb down their oak and leave whenever they wanted to. Seems like “Redwood Mary” is out of her element.

Image Source: Skyler Reid, Daily Cal
UC keen to deal with stadium, not sitters [SF Chron]
Earlier: Judge Gives University the Go-Ahead



Comments:
dfasdf said:
Aug 2, 2008 at 10:19 pm

that was a good title. i lol’d.

“”The university is trying to throw up a real roadblock,” she said. “The university is obviously champing at the bit here. They’re bound and determined to do what they set out to do from the very beginning.”"-from the sfchron article.

why does everything in that quote seem like it can be said of either side? except ‘real roadblock’ in the university’s POV are the people inhabiting the trees…

i remember reading something that zach wolf guy said about hm let me find it..”The UCPD continues to abuse peoples civil rights; converting Cal into a private school, kicking students and California taxpayers off public property.”

Interestingly, I get the feelin’ that those treesitters aren’t really your average Californian tax payers- accomadation fees anyone?

Thinking about it, taking into consideration the hundreds of thousands of dollars that’s been wasted because of the treesitter’s habitation of the oak trees, that area is a pretty pricey place to live. even if it is just sleeping in a makeshift hammock. or tree branch.