It has been an emotional weekend for many at the foot of Oak Grove. Arborists have removed 35 of 42 trees as of Saturday, and are expected to cut down all but one redwood by today’s end.
Our redwood denizens no longer will receive adequate water and nutrition which the university has provided for 21 months. As of Friday, four tree-sitters remained with only one liter of water “to share”. We wonder if the heat will cause the tree-sitters to worry about their redwood’s thirst. UCB claims to have no plans of forcibly removing the tree-dwellers. We think the university is waiting for them to ripen and fall.
Updates on construction of the new project, which begins Monday, are to follow. In the meantime, check out the new signs that are making appearances alongside the usual hand-painted hemp banners:
It’s about time we respond to your comments. This week we received a little outside research from our readers, so we decided to share some recommended reading for you all. You don’t even have any real homework just yet, so you might as well take a look.
OK, so we’re tired of tree-people news too, but this was too good to pass up: Apparently, arborists from the university are cutting down branches in an effort to make things “difficult, but not dangerous” for the tree-people.
We have to say, this is somewhat welcoming news. But enough of that, let’s analyze the supporters’ and tree-people’s reactions: read more »
Posted by Patrici Flores on Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:53 am
No, we don’t refer to the the tiny strip of grass on the northern stretch of Shattuck Avenue, where many foodies flock to show off their slices of Cheeseboard.
Rather, we speak of the median next to the Memorial Stadium oak grove, which boasts loitering hippies, tents and cardboard shacks instead of the comparably well-groomed Cheeseboard fanatics. With school set to start in a few weeks, the university really wants these squatters out–and they’re looking to the city for a little bit of help.
Posted by Christine Borden on Saturday, August 02, 2008 07:39 pm
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. read more »
The injunction against construction at the oak grove is extended as the Panoramic Hill Association and the California Oak Foundation form their cases for an appeal. They need to prove fault in Judge Barbara J. Miller’s ruling and reason for another injunction. [Daily Cal]
But the city of Berkeley is the third party in the case against the university, and we’re not so sure where they stand. To appeal or not to appeal; that is the question. [Daily Cal]
Another source, though, says with conviction that Berkeley will not appeal. Perhaps the initial court fees are already enough, or perhaps it’s just time to suck it up and lick some wounds. [SF Chron]
Earlier, the Clog said the tree-sit would be over soon, and lo and behold, Judge Barbara Miller hath delivered. An injunction that prevented the university from building on the oak grove will be lifted in a week, enough time for the university’s opponents to appeal.
But what’s more interesting is the judge’s decision about court costs—it’s no secret that the university has “wasted” trillions, maybe even hundreds of thousands (seriously, they haven’t spent trillions) of dollars on this whole mess, and Judge Miller decided that the city of Berkeley, the California Oak Foundation, and the Panoramic Hill Association must pay for 85 percent of the university’s court costs.
According to CBS, a few tree-sit supporters gathered on Chancellor Birgeneau’s lawn on Sunday and … planted an oak tree. Our first reaction was “Hahaha … WHAT?” What sort of protest tactics are the tree people trying to use this time? The only “rational” explanation we can think of is an attempt to appeal to the chancellor’s emotions—but somehow we don’t think a tiny tree will inspire the same feelings as, say, a puppy in an ad for animal shelters.
Of course arrests were made—six, according to a UC police spokesman. But getting arrested might have been the point all along. It’s hard to think of anything more absurd than planting a tree on the chancellor’s lawn to feed a martyr complex.
Posted by Patrici Flores on Friday, July 18, 2008 03:32 pm
After the University of California’s incessant begging, Judge Barbara Miller promised that she would rule “soon” on their request for her to OK immediate construction of the Memorial Stadium’s planned sports facility. As soon as she gives the green light, it’s official–the university won–but what does “soon” mean? And does a ruling mean the last of tree-sitters will finally depart?
Posted by Patrici Flores on Sunday, June 29, 2008 07:14 pm
Do we see a light at the end of the tunnel … already? Could it be? Yes, yes it is. At least according to the dears at California Golden Blogs–writer oaktownmario, to be exact. On Friday, the university filed a response to the ruling, which he read in its entirety. He also determined that it “kicks ass.”
The Clog read through his summary, which could still be a little dense for the average reader who doesn’t really care all that much about the tree-sit. Nevertheless, it sounds like good stuff. The university basically modified their athletic center blueprints and could possibly start building fairly soon. This line of the filing in particular seems to emanate the sound of trumpets and choirs of golden angels: “This Court has now ruled that neither CEQA nor any other law prohibits the University from removing trees to make room for the [Student Athlete High Performance Center].”
Loading ...
Print This Post
The injunction against construction at the oak grove is extended as the Panoramic Hill Association and the California Oak Foundation form their cases for an appeal. They need to prove fault in 
