GREAT IDEA!

Brought to us by the special land interests of Berkeley, California

East Bay Express
Give Cal Plan the Ax

Retrofitting Memorial Stadium for a quake will be a futile waste of countless millions.

By Chris Thompson

Take a half-dozen granola-and-sandals activists, give them surnames like "Runningwolf" and "Butterfly," stick 'em in a few trees, and sic the University of California on them, and you've got the makings of a perfect Berkeley story. And so the national press has waggled after the latest town-gown controversy, in which university officials want to build a $120 million athletic training center to boost their newly bemuscled football program, and crunchy eco-acolytes (and even a curmudgeonly ex-mayor or two) have put their bodies on the line to stop them. Last month, the city successfully snagged an interim injunction against proceeding with the construction, which would have done away with a smallish oak grove and apparently struck at the heart of a key part of what made this town the "third most sustainable city," according to the eco-wonks at SustainLane.com. It also would have highlighted UC's imperial arrogance, made dozens of squirrels homeless, contributed to global warming via the sweat of middle linebackers; you know the drill. But as usual, the most important element of the story — the true folly of the university's plan — went unnoticed.

But where to play? How 'bout the Coliseum?
The issue isn't really the training center, which could be located in any number of different areas in or around campus. It's the California Memorial Stadium itself, which is the heart of the sports complex university officials want to reinvigorate. The stadium is an 84-year-old seismic deathtrap, built right on top of the Hayward fault, and the western half of it is slowly moving north, ripping at the foundations. Officials need to build the training center so they can move their jocks and coaches out of the stadium before a massive quake hits and buries them beneath a pile of rubble that used to be bleacher seats. Fine and good; since they work there five days a week, getting them out of the complex would surely save their lives. But then Cal administrators want to do something truly stupid: spend a fortune retrofitting the stadium itself.

No one truly knows just how much that would cost. UC Berkeley spokeswoman Marie Felde claims that Cal's engineers haven't even done the math yet. "They're not that far into the design process," she said. "Nobody wants to guess." But according to Craig Comartin, a structural engineer who has studied the schematics for UC Berkeley, the project would probably cost in the order of "tens of millions." For Cisco de Vries, a spokesman for Mayor Tom Bates, the university's very refusal to finish designing the retrofit and related projects is exactly the sort of irresponsible and arrogant planning that prompted the lawsuit in the first place. "Until there's some understanding of what it will take for the stadium to be safe, how can we be making decisions involving hundreds of millions of dollars?" he said. "That's a big part of our concern. The mayor says we want them to figure out at the very least what they're going to do with the stadium first."

But this much we know: The university's stated objective is to save the lives of the approximately 73,000 fans who could be caught attending the Big Game when the Big One hits.
Take a closer look at those odds. Seismologists claim that in any given year there's a 1 percent chance of a major quake along the Hayward fault. Cal plays between six and eight games a year at the stadium, and once the training facilities and administrative offices are relocated, these games are the only times a significant number of lives will be at risk. In other words, the university is about to spend tens of millions of dollars to prepare for a disaster that has a one-in-25,000 chance of happening.

But where would we play football, you ask? Where would we watch Jeff Tedford's Bears crush Stanford's spirits for a generation? Funny you should ask. University planners don't just want to retrofit the stadium; they want to beef up its concession outlets and slap on some new lights, luxury boxes, and press offices. There just happens to be a facility that already boasts all of these amenities, and its owners — you and me — will be desperate for new tenants very shortly.

It's called McAfee Coliseum, and now that the Oakland A's are planning to split for Fremont, Saturdays just happen to be free. With one lease agreement — and given Oakland's pathetic history of giving away the store, Cal officials can count on that agreement being very lucrative indeed — the university could have a massive football complex, complete with luxury boxes and garlic fries, for a fraction of what it would cost to modernize Memorial Stadium. And here's the bonus round: It's not sitting on a fault.

According to UC Berkeley's Felde, such a scheme won't fit in with the university's long-term plans. "When the campus looked at how to revitalize the southeast quadrant of campus, one of the main points was that the goal was to integrate the athletic experience with the student experience to a greater level than it is now," she says. And the fact that the stadium is across the street from the academic centers of campus is very important."

Well, it works for UCLA, whose stadium, the Rose Bowl, is located all the way in Pasadena. And moving Cal's games to the Coliseum wouldn't jeopardize Tedford's contract, which reportedly stipulates that the training center — and only the training center — be built. Felde claims the retrofit would be financed solely by alumni contributions and ticket sales, but make no mistake: Sooner or later you'll pay for this. When the Big One does strike, public money will be used to repair the stadium, and in the meantime, the redirection of ticket revenue would only increase the athletic department's multimillion-dollar budget deficit.

More than ten years ago, Oakland and Alameda County officials signed one of the worst sports deals in history to get the Raiders back, and it cost them millions and the departure of their baseball team. UC Berkeley planners have a chance to shake off the delusion that costly stadium construction projects are the only way to save their football program, and avoid the catastrophic mistakes made by their neighbor to the south. They just have to tell their alumni that beer tastes just as good in Mount Davis.

RESPONSES TO THIS NONSENSE

Your right, Cal football should be played in Oakland--by seceding from the city of berkeley. The University and its surrounding neiborhoods should either be annexed by Oakland or any other city that would demonstrate cooperation, appreciation, and respect for having the distinct priviledge of hosting the premier research and educational institution in the world. In the spirit of Natalie Maines from the Dixie Chicks, I'm ashamed that Cal is the city of berkeley. I'm ashamed Tom Bates is a former Cal football player and alum. As a Cal alum, I ashamed to be a voting resident of the city of berkeley.
Comment by Nicolas — February 20, 2007 @ 10:53PM

Terrible idea. Let's just go ahead and p*ss away 80+ years of tradition and the most authentic sporting experience in the bay area. The masses of blue and gold faithful surging up Durant, Bancroft Ave. & the campus, then descending back down into the apartments, bars, eateries, and elsewhere after the game is a one of a kind experience. The picturesque setting and backdrop of the stadium is unmatched. The sightlines of every seat in that stadium are good, far better than the hole in Oaktown.You conndradict yourself in your own article too you moron:"In other words, the university is about to spend tens of millions of dollars to prepare for a disaster that has a one-in-25,000 chance of happening."then..."Sooner or later you'll pay for this. When the Big One does strike, public money will be used to repair the stadium, and in the meantime, the redirection of ticket revenue would only increase the athletic department's multimillion-dollar budget deficit."Well, is it a one-in-25,000 chance?, or an inevitable event? Leave your bad ideas and multipurpose stadiums in LA where they belong.
Comment by Andrew — February 20, 2007 @ 10:55PM

You forgot to mention one thing: The Oakland Mausoleum sucks. Nobody, not the A's, Raiders, or anybody else, wants to play there. The Mausoleum is Oakland's problem, not Cal's. The University should not be expected to bail out the city, and should be free to solve its problems on its own terms. If the stadium gets retrofitted, it will be designed to withstand a massive earthquake, and the eventual cost would be far less than the cost of a disastrous event in the stadium as it currently stands.Your opinion piece is uninformed at best, sensational at worst.
Comment by Kevin Adams — February 20, 2007 @ 11:41PM

Well then, maybe nothing should be retrofitted - the homes on Panoramic Hill next to the stadium, student dorms, freeways, San Francisco City Hall, the Bay Bridge. It cost money. Just let them all rot.If anything, UC has been a better neighbor to the city of berkeley than vice versa. Any other university would have developed People's Park by now, but no, we have to let it remain the dump it is because of the same people sitting in the trees. And the new stadium plans are lessening the danger with the reduction of seating from the existing 73K to 65K. It's a crime that what can be such a great amenity to the UC and the city of berkeley, can be obstructed by lies, distortion, NIMBYs, jobless tree sitters with "groovy"' nicknames, and residents who just want to get rid of Cal football.
Comment by Eddie — February 20, 2007 @ 11:43PM

when did you abondon reason for madness?
Comment by Jack — February 21, 2007 @ 04:41AM

Moving Memorial stadium anywhere is a terrible idea. We need to build and expand the current stadium. It will be constructed with the most modern plans and technologies. The new Memorial stadium should be left exactly where it is. Sadly, all of these people calling for it to move have no understanding of the rich history and tradition of the stadium and it's current location. Furthermore, the stadium is the center of the University's athletic program. To say you can just move it away is simply foolish. Don't listen to these anti-social "protesters". They have their own agenda and it has nothing to do with reality. BUILT IT NOW.
Comment by Timothy Smith — February 21, 2007 @ 07:26AM

Wow.Just plain poor research!Did you actually speak to Sandy Barbour, Jeff Tedford?Do you know any Cal ALums who would support your flimsy ideas?Besides not being in touch with your consituency, and doing poor research, you have a really valuable opinion.wink wink,
Comment by Richard — February 21, 2007 @ 07:40AM

A not-so-bright article for a not-so-bright idea.. You obviously didn't graduate from Cal. Get away from the sensationalized claims and foolhardy ignorance and you'll see quite a different picture. For example, "it works for UCLA"??? Depends on who you ask and your opinion certainly does not equate to fact. The situation for Cal is not directly comparable to that of UCLA's and much can be argued against for a stadium located so far from the main campus. If I was writing this piece, I'd also filter out any silly quotes from the office of that looney of a mayor, Tom Bates. Those quotes alone make me feel dumber after having read them.
Comment by andy — February 21, 2007 @ 11:48AM

Chris Thompson is, I believe, a Cal alum.Though I think he was never much of a football fan.Chris, try to imagine what playing at Oakland Coliseum would be like:--Less than half the students who currently attend will bother to make the long journey down BART.--Alumni/homecoming weekend will be dramatically hurt.--Local businesses will suffer from those 7 weekends of year of big business.--If we played in Oakland, this year, for instance, Tennessee Volunteer fans won't need to step foot in Berkeley at all.--If, god forbid, we ever suffer a pre-Tedford-like down year, the stands will become empty. With the stadium right on campus, there is at least an incentive to attend games.
Comment by Jon — February 21, 2007 @ 12:32PM

"...But as usual, the most important element of the story — the true folly of the university's plan — went unnoticed."Indeed it did. Attending a football game at Cal is special in large part because it is a collegiate experience. Remove the "college" and you're left with something considerably diminished. Cal’s vibrance sets it apart. A vibrance fueled in part by the unique proximity of the various elements that make up one’s college experience - the living, and studying and playing that make up college life. My days at Cal, were greatly enhanced by its athletic programs and to consider that a facility so central to that experience could be so casually relocated across town reveals an ignorance so elemental to be considered folly – true folly.One can only wonder your suggestion should Doe Library become seismically compromised.
Comment by Andrew Golan — February 21, 2007 @ 12:53PM

Bad idea. Why not move all of the East Bay off the Hayward fault? Let's start with you guys.
Comment by Michael Poe — February 21, 2007 @ 12:59PM
I hear there's a large stadium in Athens that's been empty since the summer of 2004 and it would probably cost less than McAfee Coliseum. Oh wait, Greece has earthquakes too. Nevermind, let's just scrap Cal football altogether.
Comment by Nate — February 21, 2007 @ 03:11PM

And what do we do with Memorial Stadium? Tear it down? Whoops! Here come the preservationists demanding that the university restore this historic structure!
Comment by Wayne — February 21, 2007 @ 03:13PM

Please do some research. UC Berkeley isn't trying to "save" their football team. The team status is great. If you really wanted to know what team needs saving look across the bay into the Palo Alto area. So before you start rambling about saving programs, realize Cal is looking to upgrade (not saving) and has the resources to do it.Oh, and spare the fault excuse. Technology does wonders when you have the opportunity to apply it.
Comment by Scott — February 21, 2007 @ 03:20PM

NEWS FLASH! This project is PRIVATELY FUNDED. Nice job of "journalism", amateur. Why don't you do even a modicum of research before you go spouting your nonsense ideas? You can start with this article, which describes the specific technology being utilized in the retrofit of the stadium: http://california.scout.com/2/613967.htmlYour contention is that we should prevent the spending of PRIVATE money to retrofit the stadium before the Big One hits, because down the road we will have to spend PUBLIC money to repair it after the Big One? That's some solid logic there Voltaire. Cal playing in the Oakland Coliseum is possibly the worst idea anyone anywhere has suggested. That piece of garbage stadium isn't fit to host Pop Warner, let alone College Football. You are now free to crawl back to the deep dank hole you climbed out of.
Comment by The Spirit of Oski — February 21, 2007 @ 04:20PM

Good lord, where do you get your information? This so-called "article" has more holes than GW's plan in Iraq. The Coliseum is NOT a viable option for so many reasons. First off, Cal doesn't need or want a pile of luxury suites, as you so confidently claim. In fact, the new stadium renovation is unusually thin in such pursuits. The Rose Bowl does not work as well for UCLA as you believe. While it draws a significant crowd from the millions of Southern Californians that reside in the area, their fan base from the campus is extremely weak. Most students opt to stay home, rather than make the long trek to the stadium. UCLA football has little or no connection to college athletics, rather it takes the place of an absent professional franchise for most residents in that half of the hellhole we call LA. Relocating basketball games to the Oakland Arena was a huge failure for the campus, drawing only a handful of students to the games and rarely selling tickets in the upper deck. We should take a lesson from this and understand how important it is to keep the games on the campus, where the collegiate athletics experience can continue. Your agenda is quite clear and it's distressing that you feel so entitled to dig for headlines with such trash. Why don't you try doing your job instead of vomiting such propaganda?
Comment by Chris L — February 21, 2007 @ 05:22PM

Thank you. I've been waiting for someone to write this story. It's the elephant in the room.
Comment by Janice Thomas — February 21, 2007 @ 10:01PM
Janice, the only thing "elephant"-like in this room is your head if you think your petty needs outweigh the future of the Greatest Public University in the World. I won't bother to ask where you live because you make it abundantly clear. Go find something else to complain about like your neighbor's selection of paint color or the teenage kid's loud music across the street.
Comment by Mike Lewis — February 21, 2007 @ 10:38PM
Bottomline: retrofitting the stadium is going to be less expensive then building a new one or a long term lease at the Oakland Coliseum (amortized over the expected longevity of the new renovation).
Comment by jimmy — February 21, 2007 @ 11:17PM

Wow. Do you even think before you write? Or do such ill conceived "thoughts" just leak out of you when you least expect them?You state that "...moving Cal's games to the Coliseum wouldn't jeopardize Tedford's contract, which reportedly stipulates that the training center — and only the training center — be built." Oh, really? You might want to give that ludicrous statement just wee ponder. Do you really think that Tedford would stick around for the long haul if forced to play at that dump? And do you really think his contract would determine that outcome? I'm trying to be reasonably civil here, but you're just not very bright, are you? (Ditto for Janice Thomas.)
Comment by Wally — February 22, 2007 @ 01:41AM

Thank you for an excellent article. This is a sensical and disarmingly simple analysis.
Comment by Ignacio Chapela — February 22, 2007 @ 08:11AM

Wow...where to begin? First, Scott is correct that Cal's football program does not need "saving." Of course, that would change if Cal were to follow your advice and move its games off-campus.Second, you state without any proof at all that an off-campus stadium "works" for UCLA. I doubt many UCLA fans would agree with that statement. The Rose Bowl may be an improvement over the team's prior home (the LA Coliseum), but most UCLA fans would love to have an on-campus stadium. If you think off-campus stadiums are such a good idea, check with Minnesota fans -- the team's move to the Metrodome almost killed that program; that's why it is moving back on campus in 2009.Finally, the only elephant in this room is the question as to why someone would move next door to a football stadium, then express shock that the university might actually hold its football games there.
Comment by Bill — February 22, 2007 @ 09:31AM

It certainly is a "simple" analysis.
Comment by Ferdinand — February 22, 2007 @ 10:08AM

Thank you for the very incisive and "right-on" article about UC Berkeley's plans to retrofit California Memorial Stadium. You left out one very important point, however. The EIR issued in support of this retrofit/development outlines a way to pay for it by having an unlimited number of other "capacity events" at the 62,00 seat stadium. So the stadium becomes no longer alumni's much-beloved Cal Stadium, but a large, commercial venture with possible rock concerts, etc. In the event of an earthquake it would not be just the occassional football fan who would be a risk but the public in general- not to mention what this plan would do the the surrounding residential neighborhoods.
Comment by Joan Barnett — February 22, 2007 @ 10:28AM

McAfee Stadium stinks as a football venue. Cal is a tremendous place to watch football.The college atmosphere is unique and a fantastic experience. Tens of thousands ofCal fans and alumni are sick and tired of the naysayers. Just go ahead with the project and get it done! It will be great for the University and the Bay Area.Spending a day on the Cal campus and watching a game in Memorial is so far aboveanything "Mount Davis" has to offer. You're comparing the White House to the outhouse.Jeff AndersonTurlock
Comment by Jeff — February 22, 2007 @ 10:35AM

Your ideas are not too far fetched. The only problem is moving the games off campus. You site UCLA's plan as working. They have a very hard time getting students to go to the games. The Rose Bowl is usually half full at best. And they aren't the only example. San Diego State used to have a highly successful football program. They moved the game of campus and the whole program has gone downhill. Off campus sites might work for non-student fans, but future fans need to come from the student body to get the kind of support a college football team needs. Making it difficult for students to get to games is bad news.
Comment by Jill Moore — February 22, 2007 @ 10:43AM

EBE, I'm a dedicated supporter of the tree-sit and I just want to say "Thank you" for this article. You touch in on some essential issues that many other newspapers have intentially avoided. For example: "UC arrogance", the availability of alternative sites, the $ incentive for UC and the resulting $ problems for the Berkeley comminity. I never even thought about McAfee Stadium, but it is a great idea! It would also make travel easier for visiting teams (Oakland Airport access), and there's PLENTY of parking! A long shot, but a great idea nontheless.My only concern, will Raider fans and Cal fans get along???
Comment by K Lim — February 22, 2007 @ 11:14AM

Dear Panoramic Hill residents,Inspired by this article, I feel we need to address problems that stretch far beyond the borders of Memorial Stadium. After giving it careful thought, it's become clear that you should no longer eat meals in your homes. The fumes created from your ill-advised "enchilada night" are not only a nuisance to your neighbors, but threaten the lives of an "ancient" breed of endangered "Common House Cat." The subsequent trash from said cooking increases traffic of garbage trucks through the hillside. Besides, these kitchens are now deemed seismically unsafe, as they were built decades ago. I know you'd love to remodel and create a kitchen that keeps your family safe and happy, but think of the cats.My resolution: Cook and eat meals in the kitchens of West Oakland homes. They have perfectly good kitchens already. Don't waste your money on maintaining your personal identity when you can simply rent someone else's. I'm sure your little rugrats will be happy to make the journey to the West O. Bon Appetit!
Comment by Chris L — February 22, 2007 @ 12:43PM

Good article. As a retired architect I would add that there is no way that an athletic training center could cost $1000 per square foot, unless there is a substantial hidden cost to make its structure part of the needed support for the west side of the stadium.
Comment by Christopher Adams — February 22, 2007 @ 04:09PM

Yes, of course. Let's relocate the football program even though the stadium was there before the Panoramic Hill neighborhoods were developed. I'm going to buy a house near AT&T Park tomorrow and force the Giants to move back to Candlestick because I don't like the noise, traffic, and potential damage in an earthquake.Funny, there were no complaints from neighbors and this "newspaper" when the Haas Business School was built and Wurster Hall was retrofitted, both literally across the street from the stadium.
Comment by Eddie — February 22, 2007 @ 04:24PM

Dude, Chris Thompson, your idea would actually make sense and restore a rough sense of proportionality between the priority we accord football and the priority of spending public money.This of course means, your idea is disqualified from the start. Especially in this state.Only ideas that can be b!tched about ad nauseum or which make life perfect for one of the numerous psychotic, deranged groups of wackjobs with nothing better to do than sit in trees, participate in bureaucratic pissing matches, gripe about their property values, or participate in some mass delusion of togetherness at a sporting event are permitted, Chris. Shame on you for insulting the petty fascists who pay your salary, mister. You should have known that the most costly solution is the one that accomplishes nothing of value, and that is the one they want :)
Comment by Die Bearded Liberals — February 22, 2007 @ 10:24PM
Your idea is so stupid, I got to puke now, thank you for ruin my breakfast, and lunch today.
Comment by John Hoang — February 23, 2007 @ 10:41AM

Terrible research. Horrible logic. Sounds like someone who doesn't like football and who has drank the Panoramic Hills association coolaide. As a Cal alumni, I am extremely disappointed by the the city's lawsuit against the University. The flagship University in the great state of Californiadefines the City of Berkeley. It is not the city that defines Cal. Why can't we have a great academic University as well as a great sportsUniversity? Both are possible and your misguided efforts to support some tree supporters is very disappointing. The University hasdone an excellent job in preparing for this renovation (why wouldn't they?) and new athletic facilities. The Stadium is 84 years old. We need new facilities. You should be ashamed of yourself as a fellow Cal alum. We will win and our sports programs will excel just like our academic programs. Go Bears!
Comment by Hamlet K. — February 23, 2007 @ 02:31PM

Memorial Stadium in Berkeley is one of the best places to watch a football game on the planet. Not one bad seat in the house (except for the ones closest to the field), and views are to die for. McAfee/Network Associates/Virus Scan Coliseum is one of few reminders of an era of monstrous multipurpose bowls, and is an awful place to watch almost any event by comparison. The seats on top of Mount Davis are even worse than the "visitor" section in the LA Coliseum. Why anyone would entertain moving from a gem to a sh*thole is beyond me.
Comment by Jon — February 23, 2007 @ 06:03PM

WOW. As a Berkely native, I hate to say I have read dumber things but not by much. Off campus stadiums have not worked for college football. Moreover, the move to oakland would HURT attendence and make the deficits that you speak of even larger....football turns an important profit to help support the rest of the athletic department. You also need to address the question of "now what" since demo'ing Memorial is out of the question given its historic significance. I
Comment by Erik — February 23, 2007 @ 08:41PM

This comment is directed to Chris Adams, who said:------------"As a retired architect I would add that there is no way that an athletic training center could cost $1000 per square foot, unless there is a substantial hidden cost to make its structure part of the needed support for the west side of the stadium."------------Uh, Chris...have you been following this situation at all? There is absolutely nothing hidden about the cost nor the plan to include shoring up the western wall of Memorial as part of phase 1 of the project (which refers largely to the construction of the SAHPC).To quote DIRECTLY from university documents in a description of the project: "This building will be placed partially below grade so that the top of the building forms a plaza at the exterior promenade level of the stadium." The document continues: "Construction of the underground space for this building will require significant shoring of the existing west stadium wall, thus providing the first phase of seismic reinforcement to the stadium itself."What's being hidden here?
Comment by Justin Williams — February 24, 2007 @ 11:57PM

Joan Barnett writes:"The EIR issued in support of this retrofit/development outlines a way to pay for it by having an unlimited number of other "capacity events" at the 62,00 seat stadium. So the stadium becomes no longer alumni's much-beloved Cal Stadium, but a large, commercial venture with possible rock concerts, etc."-------------Hey Joan, I've not seen the document that refers to the unlimited number of "capacity events" at the 62,000 seat stadium, but I've got to ask you...exactly how many events per year (outside of a measly 6-7 football games) do you think stadiums that hold 62k persons are booked for? By simply perusing ticketmaster's site, it sure doesn't look like many. Giants Stadium (a football stadium serving the NY market) is booked for one concert (The Police) thus far for this year. ONE CONCERT. The LA Coliseum and Rose Bowl currently have NO bookings. So even if they were to use it as a commercial site, the demand simply doesn't exist for an unlimited number of non-football events. Your argument fails to apply logic beyond that of hysteria.
Comment by Justin Williams — February 25, 2007 @ 12:10AM

Number of errors in this subjective story.A's stadium was over 30 years old; A's wanted an entirely new and fancy "downtown" stadium in Oakland. It wouldn't have mattered if the Raiders were there or not, as the A's wanted out of there.Oakland refused. So the A's sought the riches of the Silicon Valley, which they probably were really after all along.
Comment by Ed Jamison — March 1, 2007 @ 12:02AM

Property Address: 15xx FRANCISCO ST, BERKELEY CA 94703-1215 Owner: LIM KENG L & KAM C Losers...
Comment by Snoop — March 1, 2007 @ 08:30AM

Give UC Berkeley a break. It is 1.2 acres of planted Oaks. The smart thing to do would have been to demand "mitigation", where UC Berkeley buys 5-10 acres of umperiled (i.e. to development) oaks elsewhere (ideally on the edge of an existing East Bay Park) and donates it to the East Bay Park system. That would actually add good habitat to a much larger chunk of intact habitat. This "Oak grove" is pretty low value habitat. This is something that could have been worked on in conjunction with other environmental causes. This maximizes the time and energy of activists.The dumb thing to do was to waste 100% time and effort for months for 1.2 of degraded oak habitat (take a walk in Tilden, then take a walk in the grove if you don't know what I'm talking about). This has tied up the time and energy of dozens of activists. Any victory is a loss if the true goal is to preserve habitat.
Comment by John — March 10, 2007 @ 04:11AM

I've been a Cal football season ticket holder for over ten years and I'm hoping the stadium renovations occur. However, I have to admit that many of the comments by the pro-renovation folk are childlike. Calling the author names and assuming your opinions are the only valid ones is pretty egotistical. We need voices of dissent so that the projects we undertake take all negative impacts into consideration.
Comment by Lorenzo Dodaro — March 14, 2007 @ 11:54PM

"Childish?” Wow, ok. So how exactly are we supposed to respond to such a childish article? With maturity? No, these Panoramic Hill types who move next to a stadium and then express outrage over the use of said stadium are the insane ones. This is nothing more than a classic example of the continuing efforts of the City to degrade the sovereignty of the University. They have done a wonderful job of making Cal out to be the bad guy, when in actuality they are. The other great point is the fact that Memorial cannot simply be torn down, so what are we to do with it when we move to Oakland? I have heard rumors that the Panoramic Hill Association plans on turning it into a massive party site, where underage prostitutes and drugs run rampant. I say we send in the National Guard and forcibly remove these residents. Send them to reeducation camps where perhaps they could learn a thing or two. God help us all, God help us all indeed!
Comment by Rich Sanchez — March 20, 2007 @ 01:54PM


Is anyone starting to see what an insane and self-righteous group of people we are dealing with? I sure hope so! The University of California can use all the help it can get in fending of these malicious lies and attacks perpetrated by the special land interests of the Panoramic Hill Association and the City of Berkeley. Please start today by saying enough is enough, and calling your local representatives to complain about the situation. Maybe we can get some real lawmakers on our side, instead of the tyrannical despotic city regime of Berkley.