The Daily Clog » lawsuit

Screw The Oaks, Save Our Hill!

April Isabel Angeles — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:25:53 +0000

UCB recently settled a lawsuit with our hillside football fans.

The fans filed a suit with the university when they realized that the proposed plan of the new stadium threatened their nosebleed section seating.

The settlement requires that the university “consult(s) with the plaintiffs before altering the eastern side”. It does not guarantee that dwellers of Tightwad Hill get to keep their free seats. In other words: there might be a mumbled conversation on the matter over a cup of coffee and donuts, but try not to hold your breath.

Oh well, it’s the most we can ask for, for now. Surely the university is tired of putting out these forest fires of lawsuits, so to speak. We’re counting down the minutes ’til hill-sitters start setting up camp, protest sign in one hand, ice-cold brewski in the other.

Tightwad Hill has served Cal’s cheapest die-hard fans for 80 years. It offers a view just over the shoulders of the face-painted fanatics of the student section. Granted, the view slightly sucks with all the trees in the way. However, it’s also thanks to these sturdy branches that fans can keep from rolling away down that hill. Roll on you Bears!

Image Source: maveric2003 under Creative Commons
UC Berkeley settles Tightwad Hill lawsuit [Red Orbit]

Tree-Sit Ruling ‘Looks Promising’ to Campus Officials

Patrici Flores — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:54:06 +0000

The long-awaited court ruling is finally here–and it’s 129 pages long. According to the Daily Cal, “The ruling states that with a few exceptions, the university’s environmental impact report for the athletic center is in compliance with environmental state laws.”

We think that means, “YAY! WE WON,” but it isn’t for sure. If the uber-long document looks good to campus officials, then it looks good to us. We’ll keep you updated as the press conferences come and go. In the mean time, we still have a few questions.

How will the university get those people out of the trees once and for all? We doubt they’ll come down willingly. And without tree-sitters, where will we go for our daily dose of inane Berkeley drama?

UPDATE 9:22 P.M. - Alright, so it looks like the drama will continue. Daily Cal reporters updated their article and report that the treewok side actually won in-part. Stadium development cannot take place unless the university complies with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and the California Environmental Quality Act by drawing up a new plan. In other words, no trees will be cut down … for now.

This probably means that we’ll see a lot of Dumpster Muffin, Ayr and RunningWolf in the future, if and when the university manages to get a better plan together. For now, enjoy the end of this lawsuit–and Tightwad Hill–while you can!

Itching to see the 129-page ruling for yourself? Click here.

Image Source: Shamim Pakzad, Daily Cal
Judge Releases Stadium Ruling [Daily Cal]
Judge Barbara J. Miller’s Ruling on Stadium Lawsuits [Daily Cal]
Earlier: And God Said: ‘Let There Be a Ruling on Those Oaks in, Like, a Year or So’

BREAKING: Tree People Won’t Leave

Krista Lane — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 01:43:24 +0000

The future of the Nuclear-Free-Vegan-Save-the-Trees Zone is grim, pending the results of tomorrow morning’s court hearing. Tomorrow the university seeks court-ordered removal of the tree-sitters.Last week, UC failed to reach a settlement with the city of Berkeley, so now it appears the university will resort to more draconian measures: kicking people off their property.Frankly, the shallow-rooted trees are coming down in The Big One anyway. Whether we build something half a mile from or something directly on the Hayward Fault probably won’t make too much of a difference.But in the grand principle of things, we suppose the protesters have every Free Speech Rah-Rah right to join the ranks of Those Who Hate the University for basically telling the protesters “Hey, you’re shitting all over our lawn.”Though, to be fair, they basically are.Our pick among Zachary RunningWolf’s many words were these, as summarized by the Daily Cal:bq. RunningWolf thinks the university’s goal is to quickly remove the tree-sitters.How accurate, since it’s only been oh, ten months since they set up camp, cut the tops off some trees, refused compromise and got arrested.We wondered when the university would shut this thing down, but then we remembered that it’s the University of California, where everything takes ten years (or months) longer than it has to.Image Source: Ted Kwong, Daily CalUniversity to Seek Court Order to Remove Tree-Sitters [Daily Cal]

City, UC Disagree (Again)—Student Athletes Get Political

Krista Lane — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 21:35:30 +0000

The city of Berkeley is just picky, picky, picky about their lawsuit against the University of California, probably because the university’s compromise still calls for construction at the contentious Memorial Stadium ~~hippie lair~~ oak grove.It doesn’t surprise us, really, to see the city vote against something the university proposes because it has rejected UC before.But we guess The Clog held a glimmer of hope after Beetle reported Gordon Wozniak’s support of the ASUC during the election hoopla back in July 2006, noting “his analysis completely fails to understand the Alternative Vote system the ASUC uses.”Maybe Wozniak’s annoying constituency or his pained ignorance of campus issues drove him back to his nay-saying ways.But Facebook groups have been popping up in support of the stadium and our athletic Bears, and we all know how important that makes the issue. Utterly.Nevertheless, we’re sighing at the City Council’s groundhog-seeing-its-shadow-like response to the university’s willingness to halve the scale of construction on their own property. It means an extended performance art exhibit, and more to the point, more articles to bore ourselves writing. Isn’t this getting a bit old?Image Source: George Derk, Daily CalCouncil Rejects Athletic Center Settlement [Daily Cal]Council Rejects Proposal to Amend City Charter For Student District [Daily Cal]

CLARIFICATION: It has been brought to our attention that Gordon Wozniak was, in fact, the sole City Council vote in favor of settling the City’s lawsuit against the University of California. While the author intended statements to suggest Wozniak’s “nay-saying” was in other cases, she does not wish to suggest his position was against the university in the case of City of Berkeley v University of California.

Stadium Update: University Still Wants to Patch Things Up With the City

Gerald Nicdao — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:45:12 +0000

According to a story in the Oakland Trib, UC Berkeley still wants to try to settle a lawsuit with the city of Berkeley concerning that new student athlete high performance center that the university wants to build right next to Memorial Stadium.

But Cal has apparently set a deadline, according to Chancellor Robert Birgeneau.

bq. “(The deadline for a settlement is Sept. 18) and we will be working with them to the last minute,” Birgeneau said at his on-campus back-to-school briefing before the fall semester starts Monday.

Why Sept. 18? That’s because that’s the day before this lawsuit goes to trial.

But of course, the city says that they have seen a settlement proposal.

bq. “We had a settlement meeting with them, and they didn’t offer anything,” Deputy City Attorney Zach Cowen said. “We haven’t received anything that says, ‘Here’s what we’ve decided we’re going to do.’”

And interestingly enough, the public can vote on this issue. You can head over to kitchendemocracy.com and voice your opinion on whether or not Cal should build the Student-Athlete Performance Center. As of right now, you, the public think that the thing should be built.

Image Source: Ben Gallup, Daily Cal
UC Berkeley still hopes to settle city suit [Oakland Trib]
UC Berkeley still hopes to settle city s Should the University build a Student Athlete High Performance Center adjacent to Memorial Stadium? [Kitchen Democracy]

UC Wants Its Money Back

Gerald Nicdao — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:01:44 +0000

Remember when, a long time ago, there was this company called Enron? Remember that this company, Enron, was a giant among men in the energy business? Remember when Enron pretty much screwed over its employees, investors and the state of California in 2001?

Yeah, the University of California still wants its money back. How much? Well, the university lost about $145 million.

UC is appealing all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in a battle against three banks tied with the whole Enron fiasco.

The university is the lead plaintiff in the case against Merrill Lynch, Barclays and Credit Suisse First Boston. There are about 50,000 other plaintiffs also in the case.

But why only these three banks? Weren’t there other banks? According to UC spokesperson Trey Davis, some of the other banks have settled outside of court to the tune of about $7 billion.

Still UC and the other plaintiffs say that the banks were also responsible and knew of Enron’s shadiness and didn’t do anything to stop the energy giant.

We’re not legal scholars, so we really don’t know if the highest court will take this up and if they do, whether or not they will favor on the side of UC and the other plaintiffs.

Our guess, the Supreme Court won’t hear the case. But that’s just our guess. We’re actually really hoping that this goes to the Supreme Court. It’d be nice to get some of that money back.

UC Appeals Enron Bank Case to Supreme Court [Daily Cal]