Tuesday, February 27, 2007


Well, this out of control situation just gets worse and worse. It now appears that the hero of the so called “peoples protest” Zachary Running Wolf, would like to murder UCPD officers in cold blood. Unconfirmed sources have said the threatened officer has a family, including two young children.

In other news, the mainstream media continues its campaign of disinformation and attempts to whitewash the entire incident. In this article the reporter appears to give credence to the theory of one hippie that this was just a big misunderstanding.

Please expect the truth on this in the near future. In the meantime read this blog that is also fighting for the truth.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007


The recent barrage of false lies leveled against the University is particularly troubling. As I am of Native decent, Sierra Miwok Band, (proudly more so than “Running Wolfe” could ever hope to be) I find the recent tactics of the Panoramic Hill Association downright scandalous. Haven’t the Native people been victimized enough? Apparently not.

The Panoramic Hill Association, showing they are willing to do whatever it takes to enforce their Nimby priorities, no mater the moral implications, have now dragged in Natives who honestly have no idea what the issues are. I sincerely doubt they would willingly support rich white land interests, like they are now doing, if they in fact knew the reality of the situation. I will ask this of the association, have you no shame? I mean, what level of depravity will you not sink to?

As with any society or culture, you will find elements that exist solely to self promote and obstruct. They do this because it makes them feel important, and powerful over the silently subjugated masses. This is what they do, and they do it very well. They feed off the attention and become emboldened to continue their travesty of lies and DOMINATION.

No, we will not shut our face Panoramic Hill Association! We will continue to fight for truth and justice! You will never crush our free spirit!

I find it even more disturbing that the San Francisco Chronicle would attempt to legitimize these false allegations. Caroline Jones, who wrote the article, has written one subtly negative piece after another. She has continually placed blame on the University, while showing no objective journalism during the process. What information are you basing this assumption on Ms. Jones? As I understand, no test of ethnicity was done on the body. So there can be no verified claim of Native remains. Stealing a page from your book, I conclude the following: One Spanish conquistador does not constitute a Native burial ground. This conquistador is in fact responsible for the systematic genocide of the Native peoples in the area. This body is in fact that of a Native baby killer!

I wish I could devote my life to dispelling the lies of the Panoramic Hill Association, for a lifetime it would take. The truth has become a serious problem for the Panoramic Hill Association, so they breed false lies of a never-ending nature. You see each time one of their far fetched lies is set free by the truth, they tell another lie. Most recently with the fictitious Native burial ground. They have learned much from Fox News. Their attacks have been textbook obstructionist policy, and they have been very successful. At the rate they are spinning lies, the truth will never be heard.

With the limitless funds of the Panoramic Hill Association and the taxpayers of the City of Berkeley, this river of lies may flow forever!
Another thing that I found particularly disturbing in recent days was the claim by one land owner that the University was encroaching on the City. Wow, I must use every muscle in my body to not go crazy over such statements. Statements that were run in the mainstream media. How exactly is the University encroaching on the City? This plan for Memorial is all situated within preexisting land allotments. Land that was allotted for the State of California and its citizens, NOT fringe radicals left over from the Sixties.
Sorry "Wavy" but the Sixties have been over for a very long time. Your lies are no longer accepted as the truth. People are too smart for your self promoting propaganda.

The really scary thing that I am just now starting to realize is whom we are really dealing with. These people in the Sixties helped bring the war in Vietnam to an end, a very noble cause which I salute them for. Now they abuse their power to dominate the UC, because they just happen to live nearby and are keenly sensitive to their property values. I suppose if anyone still had respect for them they would be protesting the war in Iraq. Sadly as no one does, they attack the UC. An institution founded on and dedicated to the education of people around the world. An institution dedicated to environemntal awarness and social justice!

We are living in dark times, reminiscent of the dark ages. Fueled by innuendo and lies, the Panoramic Hill Association has officially hijacked the Memorial Stadium Master Plan. Their property values are more important than the needs of the most populous state in the country. No wonder the rest of the country laughs at us. Who is willing to do what is right? To fight for truth and justice? Start today by letting these special land interests know how you feel. Go to the grove and voice your grievances directly! In a democracy such as ours, such things are still legal. Though, I will warn you, they are not a friendly bunch.

I will be posting a response to these most recent fabrications soon. Remember, never lose hope! Sometimes JUSTICE and the TRUTH can win. Though, with a well funded PR team employed by that of the Panoramic Hill Association, justice and truth for the first time may be in doubt.

Friday, February 16, 2007

A letter from Athletic Director Sandy Barbour.

Finally some truth in a sea of torrent lies!

Dear Friends of Cal Athletics:

I want to ensure you that despite a recent ruling granting a preliminary injunction against the entirety of the Southeast Campus Integrated Projects, including the proposed Student-Athlete High Performance Center , we remain completely committed to the project. We fully believe it is only a matter of time before our state-of-the-art facility is completed adjacent to historic Memorial Stadium.

We consider Judge Barbara Miller's decision to postpone work on the project until a summer trial only a temporary setback and that we will succeed on the merits of the case. The suits brought by the City of Berkeley, the California Oak Foundation and the Panoramic Hill Association are only serving to delay building a center that will improve the life safety and everyday conditions for the hundreds of Golden Bear student-athletes, coaches and staff who use Memorial Stadium on a daily basis.

The court, which had only a few days to review a large set of complex issues, had concerns about the project's conformity with CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) and APZA (Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act). Compliance with these two state statutes has been at the forefront of our planning process from the very beginning. With our team of expert geologists and engineers, we believe we have fully complied with the law and will prevail when the court case is heard.

Last week, after a short hearing in Superior Court, Judge Miller finalized the Preliminary Injunction prohibiting us from “taking any further action to implement the Southeast Campus Integrated Projects including … the Student Athlete High Performance Center, if such action would result in change or alteration to the physical environment.” This ruling does allow us to continue the essential design, planning, soils testing, contracting and bidding elements of the High Performance Center and preserves the University's authority to manage and operate the site as it has done for decades.

The High Performance Center was designed with a budget of $125 million, and we have raised nearly $100 million so far. Over the ensuing months, we will continue our planning and fundraising for the High Performance Center so that when we do get the go-ahead, we will be ready to move forward as soon as possible. Once we are able to break ground, we anticipate construction lasting 20-24 months.

We cannot let the plaintiffs' actions or the preliminary injunction slow down our momentum for this important first phase of the Memorial Stadium renovation. However, with construction costs in the Bay Area constantly rising, the delay means an increased cost to the project, although it is hard to give an exact figure at this time.

We are currently developing a new Web site for the stadium project that will contain press releases, frequently asked questions, renderings, video statements from UC staff, and updates on fundraising and naming opportunities. This site will be accessible through CalBears.com, and we expect to have it completed by the end of the month.

If you have any questions concerning the Student-Athlete High Performance Center , please contact the Athletic Development office at (510) 642-2427 or via email at bearback@berkeley.edu.

Go Bears!
Sandy Barbour
Director of Athletics


What does the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Barbara Miller Jan. 29 mean to the Student-Athlete High Performance Center ?

We are certainly disappointed in Judge Miller's decision to issue an injunction and move the case toward the trial phase. We believe that the campus has done very thorough work with regards to seismic and environmental impact issues, and that we will eventually prevail on the merits of the case. It is unfortunate that we are going to be delayed starting on a building that will improve the safety and the everyday conditions for the students, student-athletes and staff who use Memorial Stadium on a daily basis. We will continue our planning and fund raising for the new facility so that when we do get the go-ahead, we will be ready to move forward as soon as possible.

Why did Judge Miller issue the injunction?
Judge Miller is concerned about the project's compliance with CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) and APZA (Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act). Compliance and adherence to these two state statutes have been at the forefront of our planning effort from the beginning, and we believe we have met and exceeded these requirements in all cases. Our engineers, using modern materials and designs, are steadfast in their convictions that this building will be safe, even with the proximity to the Hayward Fault. The judge was asked to rule on a complex issue in a short amount of time – the campus will prepare up to 45,000 pages of documents for the court to certify for the trial phase – and we trust that a full review will confirm our belief that we have fully complied with the law and will be able to proceed with the project.

What is the primary issue contested by the plaintiffs?
The City of Berkeley has provided documentation to suggest that there may be a question about the seismic activity at the extreme edges of the High Performance Center's footprint. Our experts maintain that the footprint is clear of active faults. We will further explore the remaining 5 percent of the footprint that is in question to solidify our position that the site is seismically safe. All of the work that we are performing is being done with safety as the driving force.

What are the next steps in the case?
The court's ruling means that the case is headed towards trial. After close consultation with the Office of General Counsel and appellate court experts, the university decided not to appeal the decision. An appeal, if accepted, would likely take a year or more to resolve, during which time the trial court hearing and resolution would be on hold awaiting the appellate court decision. We expect the case to be heard in early to mid-summer and a ruling issued shortly thereafter.

Does this ruling jeopardize the Student-Athlete High Performance Center?
No, the recent ruling granting an injunction only sends the case to the next stage of the legal process. We remain steadfast in our belief that we will prevail on the merits of the case when they are presented at trial.

How much will the ruling delay the project and add to its cost?
Unfortunately, the judge's ruling means that there will be a delay in moving our student-athletes, faculty and staff into a facility that will improve their everyday and life-safety conditions. Once we are given the go-ahead, we anticipate construction lasting 20-24 months. With construction costs in the Bay Area constantly rising, the delay will mean an increased cost to the project, although it is hard to give an exact figure.

What actions can take place during the injunction?
Although the ruling prevents the University from taking any action that would implement the project at the site, it does allow us to continue the essential design, planning, soils testing, contracting and bidding elements of the High Performance Center and preserves the University's authority to manage and operate the site as it has done for decades.

What is the recent construction activity at Memorial Stadium?
Geologists dug a short trench at the south end of Memorial Stadium Feb. 1 and several borings will be drilled near the northwest edge of the site as part of a focused investigation to compliment existing data. The testing is being done to confirm the suitability of the entire site for the High Performance Center and is specifically allowed under terms of the preliminary injunction.

What is the budget and how much money has been raised for the project?
We currently estimate that the Student-Athlete High Performance Center will cost $125 million. To date, we have close to $100 million gifts and pledges and expect to raise the balance in the very near future.

Why is it important to build Student-Athlete High Performance Center next to Memorial Stadium? Why can't it be built some place else?
A high priority was put on placing the center close to where student-athletes train, practice, compete and study, more effectively integrating their athletic and academic endeavors and ensuring efficient use of their time. Specifically, the selected site will become the hub of student-athlete activities and provide an ideal geographical relationship with Maxwell Family Field, Witter Rugby Field, Levine-Fricke Field, the Golden Bear Recreation Center and Memorial Stadium.

In recent years, the university looked extensively at other sites; these included Witter Field, below ground east of the stadium, the site of the Athletic Ticket Office at 2223 Fulton St., near Golden Gate Fields in Albany, and within the current west wall of the stadium. The selected site best serves students and best meets the goals of the project. It also solves important issues of access and circulation around the stadium by creating a broad plaza atop the student-athlete center. The planned center is about improving conditions for the success of our student-athletes and ensuring the life safety of the students and staff who use the stadium 365 days a year.

Why not put the center on Maxwell Family Field?
Future development of Maxwell Family Field will address parking and sports field needs identified and approved in the campus 2020 Long Range Development Plan. Further, Maxwell Field is intensively used by students in intercollegiate programs, club sports and intramural activities, as well as for pick-up soccer and other games.

Wouldn't it be safer to build the student-athlete center someplace else?
UC Berkeley — and much of the Bay Area — has to deal with building near earthquake faults. The structural engineer for the project reports that the design requirements for seismic safety for a building on this site are no different than if the building were in downtown Berkeley. Haas School of Business was built just across the street from the stadium, and UC Berkeley's newest, most modern science building (Stanley Hall) is just down the street, also close to the fault. Proximity to faults — and designing to mitigate the hazard — is a reality of living in the Bay Area.

Why do so many trees need to be removed from the site?
The campus cares deeply about its trees. Our first priority, however, is the safety of our students and staff. The new Student-Athlete High Performance Center will move student-athletes into a modern facility that will be engineered for seismic safety. Unfortunately, some of the trees on the site will have to be removed to make way for the center. Nearly all of these trees were planted by the university when the stadium was built in 1923 – it is not an ancient grove as has been erroneously reported – and the campus will plant three new trees for every specimen removed as part of the plan for the new center.

What should be understood about the oak trees?
In developing any project, you have to weight costs and benefits. The Student-Athlete High Performance Center is about improving conditions and life safety for student-athletes, coaches and staff who will use the facility. After weighing all of the priorities and looking at many different options, the planned center is clearly the best and only viable option. In order to mitigate the loss of trees being removed for the project, the plan calls for three trees to be planted for every one removed; 142 new trees will be planted around the stadium. Of those, 61 trees are to be planted at the site of the High Performance Center.

Is this an old-growth oak grove? How old are the oldest trees?
No, this is not an old-growth oak grove. As part of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the campus had an historic landscape report done. It found that most of the trees in the area were planted when the stadium was built in 1923. Before that, the site was part of a residential garden, a cultivated landscape. Four trees on the site — three oaks and one redwood — are believed to pre-date the stadium.

How are seismic safety concerns related to the stadium being addressed?
By building the student-athlete center first, we are addressing the most significant life-safety threat by moving the students-athletes, coaches and staff who train and work in the stadium every day into a new, safe building. It is the necessary first step in future plans to renovate the stadium. The Hayward Fault does run through part of Memorial Stadium, and the second phase of the master plan for the stadium addresses seismic safety and other improvements to the stadium.

Thursday, February 15, 2007



The extremely wealthy land interests of Berkeley, in collaboration with the despotic city regime and rash hippies, have fabricated many malevolent lies about the University and this project. Their reasons for doing this are clear; stop the University from fulfilling its duty as a sovereign public institution of higher education. By degrading the image and standing of the University they become able to control it by proxy. These nefarious elements are set on this end and will stop at nothing.

The motto of the City of Berkeley

I hope to dispel some of the popular misconceptions surrounding this project. My sources and means of compilation are unimpeachable, and I gladly welcome anyone to argue otherwise.


Fabrication #1: These trees are part of an ancient Oak Grove.

Answer: Contrary to the popular misconception spun by the well-funded legal team of the Panoramic Hill Association and City of Berkeley, this is NOT an ancient or otherwise old growth forest. Actually the University artificially planted this grove in 1922, shortly after the stadium opened. It was designed to be simple landscaping, and to that end they have served their purpose exceptionally well.

So where do the attorneys and advocates of rich land interests get off telling us this is an ancient grove? This tells me is they are under the impression that most people are either apathetic to the situation, or too stupid to know better. Either way they disrespect every Californian. The silent partner in this, that is perhaps more guilty than all parties is the mainstream media that sits by and feeds us this garbage. Freedom of the press apparently only applies to those with ultra liberal policies and deep pockets. What about the common good?

Fabrication #2: The tree sitters have done a great service; they are respectful and never belligerent.

Aleast this tree sitter had the courage to tell the truth. Apparently he has been hired as one of the full time "protesters."

Answer: Well to those of you who actually believe this all I would ask is that you take a trip to the grove. There (after the police leave) you will see drug usage of the most hardcore kind, in front of young children. Alcohol drinking into the wee hours of the night. And a belligerence towards the opposition that can only be described as tyrannical. No, they have not done a great service; they have in fact done a great disservice, to not only their own kind but also the one University that has for years defended them. This is the way you show your gratitude?

Fabrication #3: The tree sitters are all students, these are not street people or professional protesters.

Yeah, that sure looks like a bunch of students.

Answer: Dead wrong. I have been to the grove on numerous occasions and each time I have been there I have never seen a student. Aside from I house down the way there are not even any students in the vicinity. On one occasion when I asked who among them was a member of this “student protest” none came forward. They later grew angry and asked why I was asking. They stopped short of attacking me or forcing me to leave, but I have a good idea this merely because of the watchful eye of the UCPD.

Fabrication #4: The UCPD is harassing the tree sitters.

Answer: Well this would be laughable if it were not such a serious matter. The UCPD has done everything in its power to accommodate this blatant disregard for the law. The tree sitters have responded by taunting, spitting, and jeering at the officers. The tree sitters apparently feel they are above the law, and as such not subject to law. It is sad that because of the negative media the police have had to force themselves to violate the oath that they swore to uphold, which is the law.

Fabrication #5: This center can easily be moved somewhere else.

This is a lie that the rich land interests have done a great job of legitimizing. See the real deal with the tree sitters is the fact that they are paid insurgents of the land interests. The land interests have no problems with the facility being constructed elsewhere, so long as it is not put near their homes. Meanwhile, more houses have been constructed near the stadium over the past few decades. They continue to encroach on what precious few parcels of land that are left for the flagship of higher education in the most populous state in the Union.

Don’t believe the lies of this consortium of injustice. The University has done thorough studies that have determined there is no suitable alternative, despite what the land interests claim. Furthermore, this land was set aside as land for the higher education system of this state. This is not a retirement playground for old radicals. Furthermore the mission of the UC has never been to be a wildlife refuge, not that this small parcel of land could ever be confused as such. The rich land interests would like you to believe that.

Fabrication #6: The hippies are just trying to save some trees. It is not like there are any other trees in the area of significance facing destruction.

These Redwoods in the Santa Cruz mountains stand to be felled. Yet there has not been one word from these so called "environmentalists"

Answer: No, that would not be true at all. In fact there is a major Redwood forest in the Santa Cruz mountains that awaits destruction as we speak. In this case we are talking about many, many acres of a truly ancient grove. Instead these so called environmentalists are attacking a small grove that was planted about ninety years ago. This is the part where you are supposed to become enlightened and realize wow, this is just the rich land interests.

Due to a severe lack of time and patience, I am unable to elaborate further on the above falsehoods. However, I encourage with the greatest enthusiasm anyone from the special land interest bunch to try and debunk my factual conclusions. I hope to make this a regular segment of the blog. The people have a right to know the truth. Special land interests and a city government bent on domination can only hold down the people for so long. Stand up and demand the truth!

This is about money, power, and domination.
Some things never change in Berkeley.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Parallel Realities
Attorney Stephan Volker has done a wonderful job of misleading the public. From telling us repeatedly that this is an "ancient Oak grove" to now telling us how a Judge ruled, he has sought to deceive the public. Well, he has done a terrific job thanks to a lazy media unwilling to vet out lies.
One based on fiction, the other in fact.

As lawyers go, Stephan Volker is not a very good one. Somehow he has greatly misconstrued what Judge Miller clearly stated. While the Judge said no permanent structures could be constructed near the site, she left open the option of erecting a temporary fence to keep out the lawbreakers. Attorney Volker though interpreted it as a clear cut victory. This from the same individual who has continually labeled this modern Oak Grove planted by the UC, an ancient one.

Wow! This is an “ancient Oak Grove?” How do you figure that Mr. Volker? It seems you have failed to read the guidelines by which truly ancient groves are governed. Aren’t you supposed to seek out justice as an officer of the court? Instead you have perpetuated lies that have caused irevocable harm to the University and this state. Your ego is bigger than Memorial Stadium.

As stated by CBS 5 News:
“Volker said Miller, following a two-hour court hearing last week, refused to limit the scope of her preliminary injunction to bar only "permanent" changes to the environment.The order therefore prohibits the university from barring the public from the oak grove by building a "temporary" fence.Miller's original preliminary injunction was issued on Jan. 29.”

Interesting, nowhere did I interpret the ruling to mean no temporary fence could be constructed. Apparently Mr. Volker specializes in adding insult to injury.

Cal Media relations director Marie Felde had a decidedly different interpretation of the ruling, backed up by UC attorneys. "The judge did not accept the petitioners' proposed language that sought to limit the university's entry into contracts and rejected their language that sought to restrict the campus from securing the site by installing temporary fencing or other temporary means.”

This is very interesting. The question becomes who can you trust? A not so slick talking lawyer out to make a name for himself, or a selfless campus official tasked with defending the truth? I'll let you decide.

Tell us Volker, who is really funding your smear campaign? Is it the tree sitters? No, I seriously doubt the bunch together has much more that thirty seven cents. No, it must be these rich folks. The protectors of property values. Whatever happened to doing something for the greater good? You make me sick!

Now what makes this so upsetting is the fact that the mainstream media gladly perpetuate these lies by offering the attention seeker Volker the spotlight. Rather than accept the truth, they seek sensationalist stories, such as the ones Volker is only too happy to offer.

This is merely the opening salvo of justice that will seek to hold Mr. Volker and his woefully malicious falsehoods in check. Someday the truth will be known and people like Mr. Volker will have to seek fame elsewhere.

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

I know, the picture is confusing. Allow me to explain, the artist hoped to convey how even on the moon, the nimbies would oppose development. Basically, no matter how removed from significance (or earth) a nimby always seeks to have their will obeyed at the expense of the majority needs.

Not In My Back Yard!


In today’s world we live in an environment where any small group with a neighborhood association and significant financial backing can hinder, impede and stop outright vital progress. From basic infrastructure upgrades to facilities as vital as Memorial Stadium and hospitals, all have been stopped by the radical voices of the few.

You see the core affair that must be clarified is the fact that these rich people in the Canyon (all of whom moved there way after 1921) support the idea of building the center somewhere else. That is the classic definition of a nimby. For they have no objections to building it elsewhere; in fact they have gone to great lengths to propose irrational alternative sites that suite neither the needs of the athletes or the University. The only needs they serve are that of the selfish few.

Now the really interesting thing to note is the mutation with which the phenomenon of nimby has grown. When the first cases of “not in my back yard!” where reported they were often times to stop commercial development i.e. Wal Mart, Home Depot etc.

Recently though numerous cases have been documented where wealthy and influential neighborhood associations have stopped the vital construction of fire stations, police stations, schools and yes even hospitals for the sick and dying.

This brave sole hoped to construct a hospital to help the sick and dying, his efforts were blocked by a neighborhood association. As a result residents in the area with life threatening ailments must be medivaced to a far removed hospital. Several people have died as a result.

This is a very scary trend that is being set and perpetually supported by the likes of the people in Berkeley. As long as it does not affect their view and property values, they say, “go ahead and build!” The minute any development is proposed in their spheres of influence, regardless of merit or imminent need, they stop it.

In so doing they put the lives of every American at risk. I can tell you this, I am not afraid to die, when my time comes, it comes. Still for something as preventable as a major quake at Memorial, I am horrified that due to their objections myself along with 70,000 other Cal fans may die very soon.

Take a look at the many houses above Memorial, all of which post date the Stadium. These people are what stand between life and death for the 70,000+ of us who attend each home game. If their efforts succeed, the stadium will either eventually colapse, with only the athletes and UC employees, or all 70,000 + of us could die on game day.

I feel the issue of Nimbyism is one worth exploring further with great depth and acumen. Stay tuned for a large expose on the radical sect that is extreme nimbyism. However, to the Nimbies out there fighting the good fight against corporate America and the big box stores, more power to you. Maybe you could teach your dim friends in Berkeley what it means to pick and choose their battles. This is a silly fight that needs to end.

Berkeley is supposed to be our friend. Why are they trying to murder us? Maybe someday (way too late) they will realize that by the time Safeway tries to put that new store near campus they will have spent all of their political capital. So instead of stopping the construction of Safeway, or Memorial Stadium for that matter, they will have only achieved the irrevocable staining of their cause. How predictable. Come on Berkeley, do the right thing...

Monday, February 05, 2007

The Stadium Debate
in a Nutshell

Here we see beautiful California Memorial Stadium, which with any luck from the City and rich land interests, will crumble during the next major quake. How insulting that the City claims their main concern is safety! If that were truly the case the athletic center would already have been allowed to be built.

You see the longer the players are forced to train at Memorial instead of the Athletic High Performance Center, the greater risk the quake will hit while they are training, killing them ALL. This could potentially be the hub of collegiate athletics in California, as it should be. Instead rich people want to keep their property values high while we all suffer.

We must also bear in mind that this stadium was constructed in 1921. None of the current houses or residents in question predate the stadium. They constructed their houses of their own free will, well after Memorial stadium had been there. I suppose being as arrogant as they are, they figured they would eventually succeed in evicting the stadium. I am here to tell them that they will have to KILL me before I ever allow that to happen. And I have been seeing some strange Volvo's around the house so who knows...

A Study in Imagery


If you look closely here you will see the twenty to thirty rich land owners who are at the root of the opposition to build the athletic center and upgrade memorial. Some speculate that they are hindering the upgrade so that when the next quake does hit, they will be able to lay claim to the ruins of Memorial. Other reasons and perhaps the more accepted views, are that they are protectors of property values. Julia Butterfly Hill, who organized the hippie protest, is said to own one of the houses in this image. She is also a supposed member of this neighborhood attack force.

One other thing that I think is of the utmost importance in this case is the following; These land owners are no better than people who move next to an elementary school and complain of recess bells, screaming kids and the noise and traffic from parents picking up their children. If this is not one of the most selfish acts imaginable, I would be hard pressed to find a more egregious example.



Wow, as anyone with even half a brain can see, this is no old growth forest. These are trees that were planted by the UC when the stadium was first constructed as simple landscaping. If this qualifies as an old growth grove, why is the huge forest in the Santa Cruz mountains about to be felled with absolutely no opposition? Are you guys starting to get the picture? Do you understand just a little bit better why the claims of the hippies that these trees are "irreplaceable" is preposterous? I sure hope so.

More satellite image

analysis to come...

The hippies think they won. Sends shivers down your spine, doesn't it? As liberal as I and many other students on this campus are, “hippies winning” is just a contradiction in terms. It would be like the San Francisco Giants winning the World Series. It just doesn’t work.

This week, the Berkeley Ewoks somehow pulled one out. Or at least, they think they did. The injunction preventing the commencement of construction on the athletic training center adjacent to Memorial Stadium was not—I repeat, not—to protect the precious coastal live oaks. It is because the entire plateau on which the stadium site sits is still miraculously straddling the Hayward Fault after 83 years. Coach Tedford may have been able to raise the dead, but unfortunately, plate tectonics isn’t part of his new contract.

The city halted construction because, despite over 45,000 pages of documentation by the university, it still believes that the project would be unsafe. But this is not really about safety. I’ve dealt with the neighborhood associations (the Panoramic Hill NA was part of the group which requested the injunction). If all the students were swallowed up by the fault—namely all of us Greeks—they wouldn’t bat an eye. Frankly, the university is this city. Without the school, Berkeley would be some backwater Bay Area town (like Palo Alto), and a mere country-cousin to San Francisco that no one ever heard of.

Without Cal football, the city wouldn't rake in the cash that it does from parking tickets and hotel revenue. Take away the 70,000 that fill Memorial Stadium each fall Saturday, and this town would be dead. The university—the athletics program in particular—shovels in buckets of revenue for the city, but the instant the school wants to expand its facilities just a little bit in order to compete with other programs for recruits (Oregon has two practice fields and one indoor facility), the city council and the neighborhood associations scream as if someone thrust a knife through their eye.

And God forbid we incur the wrath of those righteous dissenters, the true unwashed masses hanging in the oak grove like monkeys in the Amazon. Come to think of it, I’d like the monkeys’ company better. More intelligent conversation. I don’t mind hippies with cogent, well-reasoned arguments, but one of the many problems with Berkeley hippies is that they are so far removed from the agonies of real life that they take up the most ridiculous and foolish causes just because they're groovy, man.

Here’s something to stick in your bong and smoke, my hemp-bracelet friends: This isn’t even an old-growth oak grove (gasp!). Most of the trees in that area were actually planted by the university when the stadium was built in 1923. Only four trees—count ‘em, four—three oaks and a redwood—pre-date the stadium. If the university planted them, it has the right to turn them into kindling. Hippies more wood!

How many of these self-righteous tree-bags have ever been outside the one-tank radius of their Toyota Prius? If cutting down these trees is such an egregious violation of the natural order of things, why don't they try asking a Sudanese child soldier how much a coastal live oak means? Or how about going to Middle East theocracies and asking a woman who had her clitoris cut off and her labia sewn shut if she wants to join in the protest to save a few trees? Chat with a Tibetan who has been shot while trying to cross the border into India to find religious freedom if a grove of oaks matters in the grand scheme of things. I’m sure you’ll get great results, my little Berkeley Ewoks.

You’ve never seen real injustice, and you’ve never really felt real hunger, searing pain, deathly thirst or anything that people—yes, people, not plants—have felt and continue to feel around the world while you sit in your tree houses (made from wood, mind you). Before you go thinking you’ve won, look around you. You wasted your time on trees, trees that are most likely going to be cut down anyway.

And that little injunction? It was for seismic safety reasons—for people. So people could be safe. Not trees. Great job, you crusaders for truth and justice. You rule.
If trees could talk, tell Ryan what they’d say at sports@dailycal.org
I am sorry, but this post on the Bear Territory Blog was just so good that I had to re post it here. It deals with the definitions of what an "Old Growth" tree actually is.

Matt Gibbs Says: February 4th, 2007 at 10:51 pm

Hey Ken here is that post again,Here is a list of defintitions for old growth…as you will see the oak trees do not come close to matching any of these.

1. Old-growth forest - “An ecosystem distinguished by old trees and related structural attributes. Old growth encompasses the later stages of stand development that typically differ from earlier stages in a variety of characteristics which may include tree size, accumulations of large dead woody material, number of canopy layers, species, composition, and ecosystem function. More specific parameters applicable to various species are available in the USFS, Region 6, 1993 Interim Old Growth Definitions (USDA Forest Service Region 6, 1993). The Northwest Forest Plan SEIS and FEMAT describe old-growth forest as a forest stand usually at least 180 to 220 years old with moderate-to-high canopy closure; a multi-layered, multi-species canopy dominated by large overstory trees; high incidence of large trees, some with broken tops and other indications of old and decaying wood (decadence); numerous large snags; and heavy accumulations of wood, including large logs on the ground (USDA, USDI 1994a).” Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines [2001] Pg. 79 [2001 S&M ROD/S&Gs]

2. Old-growth forest - “Old-growth forests are forests that have accumulated specific characteristics related to tree size, canopy structure, snags and woody debris and plant associations. Ecological characteristics of old-growth forests emerge through the processes of succession. Certain features - presence of large, old trees, multilayered canopies, forest gaps, snags, woody debris, and a particular set of species that occur primarily in old-growth forests - do not appear simultaneously, nor at a fixed time in stand development. Old-growth forests support assemblages of plants and animals, environmental conditions, and ecological processes that are not found in younger forests (younger than 150-250 years) or in small partches of large, old trees. Specific attributes of old-growth forests develop through forest succession until the collective properties of an older forest are evident.” [pg. 45] Committee on Environmental Issues in Pacific Northwest Forest Management, Board on Biology, National Research Council. 2000. Environmental Issues in Pacific Northwest Forest Management, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 280 pp. [2000 National Research Council] Read online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/4983.html

3. Old-growth forest - A forest stand usually at least 180-220 years old with moderate to high canopy closure; a multilayered, multispecies canopy dominated by large overstory trees; high incidence of large trees, some with broken tops and other indications of old and decaying wood (decadence); numerous large snags; and heavy accumulations of wood, including large logs on the ground. Record of Decision [1994] for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. F-4 [1994 NFP ROD/S&Gs]

4. Old-Growth Forest - A forest stand usually at least 180-220 years old with moderate to high canopy closure; a multilayered, multispecies canopy dominated by large overstory trees; high incidence of large trees, some with broken tops and other indications of old and decaying wood (decadence); numerous large snags; and heavy accumulations of wood, including large logs on the ground. FEMAT Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Managment of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Vol. 1, Glossary 11 [1994 FSEIS NFP]

5. Old-Growth Forest - A forest stand usually at least 180-220 years old with moderate to high canopy closure; a multilayered, multispecies canopy dominated by large overstory trees; high incidence of large trees, some with broken tops and other indications of old and decaying wood (decadence); numerous large snags; and heavy accumulations of wood, including large logs on the ground. FEMAT Thomas, T.W., et al. 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. US Government Printing Office 793-071. IX-24 [1993 FEMAT]

6. Old-growth conifer stand - Older forests occurring on western hemlock, mixed conifer, or mixed evergreen sites that differ significantly from younger forests in structure, ecological function, and species composition. Old growth characteristics begin to appear in unmanaged forests at 175-250 years of age. These characteristics include (1) a patchy multilayered canopy with trees of several age classes, (2) the presence of large living trees, (3) the presence of larger standing dead trees (snags) and down woody debris, and (4) the presence of species and functional processes that are representative of the potential natural community. Definitions are from the Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Experiment Station Research Note 447 and General Technical Report 285, and the 1986 interim definitions of the Old-Growth Definitions Task Group. Thomas, T.W., et al. 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. US Government Printing Office 793-071. IX-24 [1993 FEMAT]

7. Old-growth Forest - “Old-growth forests in our study area vary widely in their age and ecological state (for example, in composition and structure) which reflects a similar wide variability in their history and physical environments. Old-growth Douglas-fir forest are from about 200 to over 1000 years old; they undergo gradual but significant autogenic change during those centauries of existence and may also be subjected to varying number and intensities of disturbance events, such as windstorms. As a consequence, old-growth Douglas - fir forest can differ substantially in their degree of “old-growthness” –that is, in the degree to which they express the various structural and functional features associated with these forests; this variability must be considered in efforts to define and manage old growth.” Franklin, J.F. and T.A. Spies. 1991. Ecological Definitions of Old-Growth Douglas Fir Forests. Pp, 61-69 in: Wildlife and Vegetation of Unmanaged Douglas -Fir Forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-285. Portland, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. [1991 PNW-GTR-285]

Bravo for bringing this vital information to light Mr. Gibbs.

Sunday, February 04, 2007

It’s Time for Renovation and Rebirth
Note: I wrote this article a long time ago and it is no longer relevant to the immediate debate. Still, I felt it offered at least one differing view from that of the hippies and rich land interests and the domineering desires of the City of Bezerkkeley.

In recent times, the University of California at Berkeley’s football team has enjoyed unparalleled success. For the longest time the team was the laughing stock of the Pac 10, a real bottom dweller. Today, now that the team has enjoyed success, many have called for a renovation of aging Memorial Stadium.

First constructed in 1921 at a cost of only 1 million dollars, the stadium in its current state is severely dilapidated. Perhaps of more concern to the coaching staff and school administrators is the state of the athletic training facilities which the student athletes must condition under. In fact, Head Coach Jeff Tedford was so concerned that when his contract was renegotiated at the end of the 2004 campaign, he had escape clauses written in so that should renovations not proceed, he would be allowed to leave.

In today’s ever competitive venue of Division I football a team can be severally hindered in both their recruiting purposes and their revenue gathering capacities without adequate facilities.

There are opposing foes to the expansion and renovation of Memorial stadium. Most are city folk who have traditionally opposed any expansion of the University regardless of merit. With California continuing to grow at breakneck pace, and with no let up in sight, renovation and expansion of the campus as a whole has become imperative to maintaining the standing of the University as a first rate educational outpost. Memorial Stadium and all of the athletic support facilities must be of at least standard class to foster a competitive environment.

Today’s most competitive division I football teams Texas, USC, Tennessee, Oregon, Notre Dame - all have excellent, first-rate facilities. Despite having among the worst facilities in the country the Cal football team has somehow managed to remain competitive. In 2004, they finished the season ranked number nine in the end of season Associated Press Poll. In 2005, based largely on a shaky performance by their QB, they dropped to number 25.

As we look ahead to the 2006 season, ESPN has already predicted them to be the number one team of the Pacific Ten Conference. With the official announcement of the construction of the Student Athlete High Performance Center and the Memorial Stadium Master Plan, the University has signaled its commitment to remaining competitive not only in the near future, but also for years to come.

The plan in general terms has many key upgrades that will happen in a series of stages. As laid out on the UC Berkeley website, "Construction of the first step of the stadium plan -- the student-athlete high-performance center -- is scheduled to begin in December 2006, pending environmental review and approval by the UC Board of Regents. It is to be ready for the 2008 football season. It is estimated to cost between $100 million and $125 million." The effects of a state of the art training facility for the student athletes cannot be minimized.

In today's intense recruiting battles, often times the facilities in which the student athletes will be training play a large part in deciding which school they will choose to attend. One thing of particular interest is that all funding for the stadium will be from privately donated funds and not one tax dollar, a serious feat that not many public institutions can meet. The plan goes on to lay out future upgrades to the stadium itself, as well as seismic upgrades that are necessary to maintain the structural integrity of the stadium, which rests directly along the Hayward fault.

Having discussed the many positives of the proposed stadium renovation master plan it is only fair that we examine another side to this story, namely, the locals, who tend to shy away from any physical progression of the University of California’s most prestigious campus. Their reasons, while valid, all tend to hint at a bit of personal selfishness and a failure to heed the calls of expansion that are necessary to maintain the University of California’s standing as a world leader.

In a recent San Jose Mercury News article one concerned citizen stated that, "this is our city, not the universities, and our needs of the community outweigh theirs." The article went on to state that their main concerns were, "about the impact of the parking structure on traffic, the planned removal of a popular oak grove, and what they believe will be a loss of historic character." Their main argument is that a new stadium should be built somewhere else. However, it has already been determined by a UC fact-finding panel that a stadium built anywhere else would increase the cost nearly five-fold. More importantly the stadium would have to be moved off campus, thus severing the vital link of the stadium to the university and the students.

In a recent Oakland Tribune article, student Vicki Sims voiced a concern that resonates among nearly all students, "they have proposed moving the stadium, and yet they have no idea where else to put it. More importantly, a vast majority of the UC Berkeley student body does not drive, how are we to get to these sporting events in the first place if they move off campus?"

It is terribly unfortunate that these local citizens - rather than seeking plausible solutions to the situation - want only to place blame on the University for the expansion to protect their own desires. Rather than accepting what is clearly a need for the people and the state of California, they seek to protect their own wishes, wishes of the few. It should also be noted that all of the land that the proposed renovations and modifications will take place on are public lands, owned by that state of California, not the city or private citizens of Berkeley. Rather than exercise issues of eminent domain, which would have undoubtedly led to legal land seizures, the University was able to incorporate the plan to fit preexisting land allotments.

Ultimately, only time will tell which side will prevail. However, I believe it is our duty as residents of California to see this project through for the good of not only our immediate needs, but for the needs of our children and grandchildren. Societies throughout time that have stagnated at the expense of the few rather than expand for the good of the many have resulted in doom, in either a literal sense or metaphorical sense. For the University to continue to enhance not only its sports standing but also its academic and overall image, this stadium renovation is mandatory. The needs of the many, clearly in this case, do outweigh the needs of the selfish few. It’s time for renovation and rebirth that all Californians can be proud of.

Friday, February 02, 2007


If you are looking to recapture magical moments like this, you had better get a worthy cause that enjoys public support.


It seems the hippies are rather confused and lack perspective when it comes to championing causes worthy of protest. They tell us to explore alternative sites? I tell them to explore alternatives causes. I have compiled a list in hopes of helping to educate the hippies, and also to assist them in breaking out of bondage from the rich land interests.


I realize this picture is very hard to look at. The mere sight of it breaks my heart. These are causes that need people who are passionate (but misguided) like the hippies. MILLIONS of people have died at the hands of ethnic death squads and millions more are dying of starvation, yet nothing is done.

Why is that? Is this tree sit a sign of just how screwed up our society has become? When we have hippies in trees crying bloody murder and a world away a government allows the unmitigated mass murder of an entire race? Get some perspective folks, please, I beg of you.


My God people, with all the insanity going on in Iraq I really have to question your motives for protesting the removal of a few contemporary trees that were originally planted for simple landscaping. Please get a grip! Thousands of our brave American troops and countless Iraqi civilians have been killed. How can you waste your time and energy during such monumental times? Could it be the rich land interests are controlling you?




Here we have a case of Big Lumber about to fell a truly old growth forest, yet no one fights for these trees. Why is that? Help these trees, this truly is an ecosystem worth protecting! Also of note is the fact that these trees are right here in the bay area off of highway 17.


Whatever happened to saving the rainforest? Have we become so overpowered by selfish rich land interests that a cause as notable as saving trees can be taken to the illogical extreme they preach today? Apparently so, for everyday thousands of acres of the rainforest are cut down and not so much as a word comes out of the Berkeley. Could it be the rich land interests have supplied our hippies with too much dope? Who knows, something isn’t right though, clearly!


If this argument were really about doing the right thing these protests would never have taken place. This isn’t about doing the right thing though, its about protecting property values and resale values. The people who chose to live near Memorial Stadium did so after the stadium had been there for many years.

Now they seek to dominate UC policy and they use the hippies as their childlike pawns. Hippies, I personally implore you, do the right thing! Take up one of these worthy causes and make history by doing something for the good of man and not the selfish few rich land owners. This land is for all of California and not their private retirement community of burnt out radical has beens.


Wavy Gravy is back. After remaining in relative seclusion since the sixties, he has resurfaced. It is rumored that he returned soley out of hopes of regaining the notoriety he once held.


So there has been a lot of controversy with the stadium debacle in Berkeley. People are upset, angry and feel utter despair. We are being held hostage by a few radical voices. When I say radical I mean exactly that. I am no perfect straight as an arrow citizen, but I sure as heck have more sense than these folks. Honestly it is really sad, I almost feel sorry for the hippies, they have after all merely been used as pawns in this struggle.

Who is pulling their strings you ask? Simple, take a look at the rich neighborhood land association who tirelessly incite these behaviors and openly fund them. Julia Butterfly is actually the president of one of the land associations and she is credited with having started this whole tree sit situation. Why does the mainstream press never point this out? Well, I guess that’s my job. Anyway sit back, relax and try not to get too upset over what you are about to see.


One really almost has to feel sorry for this girl. It is shameful how the special land interests have misused and abused the hippies. Hippies, take back your minds and do the right thing, if you are capable of that. When I first saw this video I wondered if this was some sort of joke. Well I did some checking and this was apparently a serious interview, how sad.


In this video we see a councilmember from Berkeley tell us why this is such a bad plan. I am sorry but I just can't seem to take this lady seriously. I mean, really now, who are you to tell the State of California how its citizens should govern their land. You after all only represent a small district, this state has over forty million people. Those people are going to have kids and they are going to need a place to send them to school!


Now I don't know about you guys, but I was at the grove recently and was troubled by what I saw. Hard core drug usage, not just the marijuana that we have all smoked, but acid and cocaine. They did it in broad daylight as if to flaunt the laws. Making matters worse there were children nearby.

Here we see a UC Police officer trying to do his job and the tree sitters try to egg him on to get a response out of him. They didn't want him filming because of all the illegal stuff they are up to. What a joke, arrest these people already! If these were Arab guys or Mexicans up in the trees they would have been haled off long ago. Yet because these special interests have so much money they are able to influence the judiciary and the media at will, with little threat of being checked for their blatant lies. When will it end?

As usual stay tuned; this fight is far from over. The peoples voices will be heard!