Did the University plant thos oak trees near the stadium?

Colleges & Universities University of California - Berkeley
1

<p>If so I feel that the university has all the right to chop them down. And they are planting 3 for every one chopped down, why is that so bad?</p>

<p>Also I find it irritating the City of Berkeley sues the University for this. The university population is about half of the city’s population, and the students generate so much tax income for the city. The Berkeley city itself is nothing without the university. Perhaps the whole campus should relocate to another city and see who’s gonna be missing the other…</p>

<p>EDIT: to clarify, i use to support keeping the trees but after reading up for information on it i changed my stance.</p>

2

<p>No, the university did not plant those trees. In fact, one of Save the Oaks’ more emotional arguments is that some of the trees have been around since before the Gold Rush.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Not really true…33k students, 8k faculty and staff, 100k citizens. What proportion of students, faculty, and staff are included in the 100k?</p>

3

<p>Aww if Berkeley relocates to another city it will have to change its name.</p>

<p>Although…UCSF getting an undergraduate program and graduate programs, business school, and law school does sound somewhat enticing.</p>

4

<p>So the university did not plant any of those trees? none?</p>

5

<p>no, they are currently held up in court.</p>

6

<p>i was able to read your deleted post dobby.</p>

<p>I’ve done my fair share of research and I’ve decided to create a thread targeting respectful users to post, thanks very much.</p>

<p>and my point about the population of the university was not to dwell on exactness of the population percentage (hence “about,” although i’m 10,000 or so), but rather to convey that the university makes up a huge chunk of what the city of berkeley has become.</p>

7

<p>The main issues behind the current injunction are a number of concerns brought forth by the City of Berkeley and the Panaromic Hill Association (seismic measurements of the area). The injunction was not over the trees per se.</p>

8

<p>The seismic issue is a pretext for both the tree-tards and the Pnoramic Hills people in their goal to block new construction.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Dobby, did you ever bother checking the facts? Those people are lying, they lied first about this somehow being a unique “ecosystem” when there are a thousands of acres of oak woodland all around, including several parks within Berkeley proper.</p>

<p>Actually dobby, </p>

<p>-almost ALL of the oaks were indeed planted by the university as landscaping for the new stadium in 1923. The land around the stadium and on campus was mostly grassland. There are today far more trees and greenery in the area than there was before the University came.</p>

<p>-There are only FOUR trees that predate the stadium that are going to be removed for the new center. Out of those, one is an unhealthy oak tree, one is a redwood tree that is going to be transported and replanted nearby, and two trees that are older than the stadium are going to be cut (oaks don’t take well to being replanted, unlike redwoods). Chances are that those trees were also planted by the University before the stadium was build as landscaping for Gayley road, which has been around since the 19th century.</p>

<p>Dobby’s bias towards the coalition of obstructionists is truly incredible, they are seeking to harm the university, which they HATE, especially the homeowners of Panoramic Hills (median house price of $1.25 million), who are behind the real fight and who want to shut Cal Football down, like they have curtailed concerts at the Greek Theater.</p>

<p>In the absence of any critical thought and actual information to counter their propaganda, it is easy to fall for their lies.</p>

<p>Some facts about oak trees:</p>

<p>-there are OVER ONE BILLION OAK TREES IN CALIFORNIA! That’s, right, 1,000,000,000 oaks. We are blocking a project that won’t cost anything to the university, that means a tremendous deal to tens of thousands of sudents and alumni and that generates $12,000,000 in net revenues for the school, revenues which are invested in scholarships for other student-athletes, and a project that would potential SAVE THE LIVES OF HUNDREDS OF STUDENTS AND STAFF, because of TWO OLD OAK TREES in a state that has ONE BILLION OAK TREES.</p>

<p>STOP THE INSANITY, ALREADY.</p>

9

<p>^^</p>

<p>Cite your facts, CalX. I’m not trying to be antagonistic, but without support, your figures sound weak.</p>

10

<p>Maybe this will help somewhat: </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.forestdata.com/oak_inventory.pdf[/url]”>http://www.forestdata.com/oak_inventory.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

11

<p>Even if it is just one tree, that tree should stay in its place of birth.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Are you criticizing me for failing to write a history of the oak grove in question? If you are, that’s ok. But where is YOUR history of the oak grove in question? </p>

<p>Don’t pretend your “facts” are truly more substantative than mine. Both the supporters and opponents of the proposed athletic facilty are probably hurling misinformation. I never said Save the Oaks was providing “reliable” or even “objective” facts, all I did was to imply that Save the Oaks is providing some statements which it is passing off as “facts.” I choose to believe Save the Oaks’ oak-related “facts” over their opponents’ oak-related “facts.” You are also free to choose a side. Hopefully the Oaks will win.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m not so sure I would call that a lie. It is certainly true that each location on earth is a unique econsystem. There may be many ecosystems similar to the oak grove in question, but they are by no means identical to the grove. Destroying the oaks at the stadium would destroy a unique ecosystem.</p>

12

<p><a href=“http://www.californiaoaks.org/ExtAssets/Oaks2040%20Final.pdf[/url]”>http://www.californiaoaks.org/ExtAssets/Oaks2040%20Final.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The figures I’ve used actually come from the California Oaks Foundation, which is one of the parties suing the University…</p>

<p>Here’s a fairly detailed aerial picture of the stadium a few years after its completion, showing the oaks as seedlings. The bigger trees west of the stadium in that picture line up along Gayley Road, they were older landscaping. This is not some kind of native primeval old growth ecosystem as the opponents are trying to portray it. If you see picture of campus from the late 19th century, you can see that the landscape was mostly grassland and plains. Unfortunately people are pretty gullible today with regards to environmental issues, and have been to eager to embrace the mythology behind the treesitters’ crusade.</p>

<p><a href=“http://sunsite.berkeley.edu:8085/AerialPhotos/airphotoucb28/ucb-28-4.jpg[/url]”>http://sunsite.berkeley.edu:8085/AerialPhotos/airphotoucb28/ucb-28-4.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

13

<p>Dobby, supporters of the projects aren’t hurling misinformation. I dare you to support this claim.</p>

<p>Opponents on the other hand are. They have managed to frame the debate portraying this narrow strip of oak landscaping as some kind of unique primeval ecosystem when it’s in fact a very common tree and habitat. They have knowingly lied about the grove by saying it was the last oak grove in Berkeley, when in fact they know damn well that there are other parks like Live Oak or Cordonices, not to mention tens of thousands of oaks just east of the stadium. They have had to lie about the trees and turn it into an “ecosystem” because it’s a sexy catchphrase for gullible minds, and because the tree count in the whole area WILL ACTUALLY INCREASE after the entire project is finished. The parking lot northeast of the stadium and the one between the law and business school will be turned into pedestrian plazas and parking spots will instead be buried under Maxwell Field. Oak trees aren’t slow growers, those trees will have large green crowns in two decades.</p>

<p>

No, it isn’t. Variety in ecosystems is a function of the weather and soil and you will have the same ecosystems in the same region where the same weather conditions and soil exist. There is absolutely nothing that is ecologically unique about the several dozen trees east of the stadium.</p>

<p>The rhetoric is powerful, but its power ultimately rests on the naivete of the general public, and it’s regrettable that Berkeley students can’t rise above that level of gullibility.</p>

<p>Beyond lying about the facts, they also are hypocrites, pretending to be concerned about the safety of the occupants of the stadium and future facility when in fact it is just a pretext to block the project. They have incurred millions of dollars in extra costs because of the delays, and are also jeopardizing the project and the safety of the student-athletes and staff.</p>

<p>There are approximately 230,000,000 coastal live oaks mostly in central/north California (out of a total CA oak population of over ONE BILLION.) ONE-FITH of Alameda County is made up of oak habitat! THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ECOLOGICALLY UNIQUE ABOUT THE OAK-COVERED STRIP OF LANDSCAPING EAST OF THE STADIUM!</p>

<p>Opponents of the project should be exposed as football haters, and ultimately Cal haters, as opposed to concerned environmentalists.</p>

14

<p>

</p>

<p>That is simply not true. The ecosystem in question is unique in its relationship to Berkeley’s student population, the individual cars that zoom by it, the particular angle at which each tree is tilted, the crowds which frequent the stadium, the yoga-enthusiasts who meditate under the branches, etc… By cutting down these oaks you are destroying their potential role in shaping the world’s environment.</p>

15

<p>****ing hippies.</p>

16

<p>Dobby, what you mean is not “ecosystem”, but “setting”. Ecosystem is a <em>scientific</em> term referring to the biological dynamics that occur between the fauna and flora of the area. </p>

<p>that grove is a nice garnish for the stadium and the trees are nice, but we are at a point where those trees are threatening to bring down the entire athletic department at Cal! You talk about the interaction of the trees with the crowds, but most of the obstructionists want to shut down Cal Football! If those people have their way, there won’t be any crowds interacting with the trees. You’re destroying the real shrine here, Memorial Stadium and Cal Football, the trees are just garnish. </p>

<p>As well, you don’t seem to know Berkeley or the campus quite well, this area has never been a destination or one of the better flora highlights on campus. I’ve lived at the I-House and went to school at the college of Engineering then at Haas, and lived in Berkeley a decade. i know the area very well. The area above the stadium or Strawberry Canyon are far richer and more interesting than the oak grove in question, which is just a nice landscape for the stadium. Ironically, the area will be more of a destination after the project, when there will be plazas all around the stadium and when new trees will extend their canopies to cover most of the area that was uprooted and some of the area that used to be an asphalt parking lot.</p>

<p>You also have strange notions about trees and forests. Trees are a renewable resource, cutting them, using their wood and growing new ones is actually good for the environment and the planet’s carbon balance.</p>

17

<p>

</p>

<p>No, the oak grove is definetly an ecosystem. One, humans are fauna whether they like it or not so if the oaks get chopped down, some humans won’t be able to interact with the oaks as they formerly did. Their ecosystem will be lost. Besides, there’s plenty of these “biological dynamics” you speak of in the oak grove area. For example, a guy I know takes his dog there every week or so. As he tells it, the dog has a favorite tree on which to pee. If that tree is chopped down, it might result in some sort of canine depression and negatively alter the biological dynamics of the flora and fauna at the oak grove.</p>

<p>But this is pointless to argue and will be my last post on this topic. Save the Oaks!</p>

18

<p>

This is typical. You can’t argue with Dobby on this, for a simple reason. Just as you can’t discuss gun control and abortion with a hardcore conservative from Alabama, you can’t discuss anything having to do with trees with a typical hardcore Berkeley liberal. It won’t and can’t be about facts. Dobby cannot escape the trenches of terrible bias; that’s how it is. And that’s how it is for all the tree sitters; they will not listen to reason. They had a tree hugging ceremony!</p>

19

<p>Canine depression of a dog vs the lives of 500 persons, or the depression of 70,000 spectators… </p>

<p>Quite a dilemma.</p>

<p>Dobby, the kind of interaction you describe is not part of biology or ecology, it is the domain of architecture, landscaping and urban planning.</p>

<p>One uninteded consequence of this whole fiasco is that entities in urban environments will be very careful about planting trees since their removal somewhere down the road will be politically difficult. When you plant a tree somewhere, you make future development or construction in the area. This will lead to fewer tree plantings…</p>

20

<p>g1, what really ****es me is that those idiot outsiders and their misguided sympathizers are extending their dogmas into the realm of the campus community and are inflicting a lot of damage to a community to which they don’t belong. </p>

<p>As a donor, I am also terribly ****ed off at the thought that we will be wasting millions of dollars on delays and litigaton.</p>