<p>dobby, your reasoning and stance on the oaks and the homeless is pretty unbelievable. As in, I don’t really believe that you buy into what you say. I don’t see how you can.</p>
<p>I just drove past the oaks, then up the road toward Lawrence Hall of Science – there are thousands of trees only steps away from these oaks; the campus itself is filled with trees of all kinds – just walk a quarter mile down the hill to Faculty Glade. This is nutty (though it was amusing to see Shirley Dean, the ex mayor, up a tree) – as nutty as preserving People’s Park in its present state. The only issue that will be seriously litigated (the case of those on “cheapskate hill” is preposterous) is whether it is a seismically sound plan. If not, they should build it elsewhere.</p>
<p>Yep. Looks like if the atheletic structure will withstand the “big” earthquake, then it will be allowed to be built.</p>
<p>It is seismically sound. It’s a low-lying building close to the ground, and the ground itself is more seismically sound than most of west berkeley. </p>
<p>The 500 student and staff who work and practice inside Memorial Stadium are definitely not safe. The new facility could save their lives.</p>
<p>The obstructionists really don’t have any real arguments for their case. I’ve posted a few comments on Youtube in response to their propaganda, and every one of them has been deleted. free speech indeed…</p>
<p>If you haven’t signed the petition, please do, and spread the word.</p>
<p><a href=“Petition Online - Petition Online has been retired”>Petition Online - Petition Online has been retired;
<p>It’s hard to argue against someone who will stick to what he says no matter how much he doesn’t believe it himself, and will continue to do so no matter how ridiculous it seems to himself as well.</p>
<p>As an outside observer here, can they not just build the stadium somewhere else and avoid the hassle?</p>
<p>No, because (a) the site is magnificent, I’ve been to about 50 stadia all over the world and Memorial Stadium is far and away the most gorgeous one due to its gorgeous site. (b) it would cost twice as much, (c) an off-campus stadium would practically kill the football program, which would sink the whole athltic department and (d) there isn’t any room on campus or around Berkeley for a big stadium.</p>
<p>Where do the opponents want to move the stadium to anyways? I can’t think of any reasonable location.</p>
<p>CalX: Yet isn’t USC football and UCLA football at off-campus stadiums? Both universities, particularly the former, have done exceptionally well in their football programs?</p>
<p>I think UCLA’s playing at the Rose Bowl (an inconvenient distance from the UCLA campus) greatly kills attendance, and to some extent excitement. As to USC, I thought they played on campus, but now I realize they do not. But look at a map- it’s what, one block away? That’s not much distance from a huge portion of the student population.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, but Cal has something UCLA and USC do not - its own stadium. Memorial Stadium is university-administered property and can be used by students when its open, but the Rose Bowl and Memorial Coliseum are at the jurisdiction of the City of Los Angeles. It’s good to be a Golden Bear.</p>
<p>actually, the Rose Bowl is can’t be touched by L.A., it’s administered by the City of Pasadena (my home town). The Rose Bowl is its own entity, and signs its own contracts for TV/College playing (i.e. UCLA) and renovations (So if/when an NFL team moves in, it won’t ever be an “insert corporate name here” Stadium, but always the Rose Bowl, just fixed up nice by the NFL and its sponsors). The City also makes sure that the Turkey Tussle is held there (the annual rivalry game between the 2 big high schools in the Dena).
That’s why the Rose Bowl Game was shown by ABC, and not Fox, because the Rose Bowl has a contract with ABC. Pretty cool i think…go Pasadena</p>