Comments on: Injunction issued against Cal renovations

By: Ken Crawford

Ken Crawford — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 17:14:44 +0000

Maybe you should re-check how clean that water is you’re drinking “Clean Water Girl”. “Your lawyers” were completely unsuccessful in winning their case. The case was won by the City of Berkeley lawyers regarding the seismic issues. There was ZERO indication that the trees were part of the injunction.

But thank you for admiting that you have no integrity. Besides being willing to claim a victory you were not given, you’re willing to lie in court (“Come to think of it, we all might fall out of our trees, and rest assured we would blame it on your unjust University”), and threaten us with a lawsuit for a crime we didn’t commit.

And you say we’re the sorry ones?

By: Clean Water Girl

Clean Water Girl — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:43:32 +0000

I will say this, you better pray none of us fall when and if we do come out of the trees. I can assure you that with our lawyers, if any of us should fall, we will sue your school for every penny of that 125 million needed to build the center. You saw how we were able to Judge shop in the injunction trial. Just imagine what kind of Judge we could get in a personal injury suit against the school. Come to think of it, we all might fall out of our trees, and rest assured we would blame it on your unjust University. See if they never came up with this stupid plan in the fist place, none of us would have to be in these precious beautiful trees. Say goodbye to your football dreams. We are getting more supporters everyday, and though we still number in the very few, our voices are louder and better organized than yours! And you say we smoke pot, please, you guys are sorryâ€¦

By: Ken Crawford

Ken Crawford — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 00:52:27 +0000

See what I’m talking about guys? The last thing we need to be doing is giving Seth crazy thoughts. Right Seth?

By: Seth...

Seth... — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 23:24:22 +0000

Wow, your comments on how to kill a tree give me crazy thoughts. Thankfully I am not crazy enough to do what you have said. In the end I think the UC will prevail and the sanctioned killing of these trees will be permitted for the greater good. Remember we are going to plant three new trees that will be just as good, if not better, than the ones currently there.

By: Ken Crawford

Ken Crawford — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 23:06:35 +0000

OK, I like to keep the discussion here as open as possible but you guys are testing my patience with these suggestions for how to break the law. Note to readers: I DO NOT ENDORSE KILLING THESE TREES W/O APPROVAL.

I would appreciate it if no one else piled on with additional ways to kill trees.

By: In a just world...

In a just world... — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:37:43 +0000

1) Take one cordless drill and make long and wide diameter hole in the tree trunk, preferably pointing down at 45 degrees. Fill hole with salt; Plug hole with bark, mud or anything else to hand.

2) Purchase 1lb of Sodium Chlorate and mix with sugar. Bury that near the tree and watch the sucker die.

3) Spray the leaves with high concentration of urea/nitrogen (fertilizer) on a sunny day. Nitrogen will burn it.
OR

4) To kill a tree without removing it you can just girdle it: remove the bark in a band all the way around the trunk. It could possibly survive if the cambium manages to stay alive, so you may want to scrub/scrape the band after you remove the bark.

By: Ken Crawford

Ken Crawford — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:21:52 +0000

Well, I have more optimism than that “Cal’s Dead”. You’re obviously right that this ruling stinks, but it’s just a preliminary hearing and judges are much more likely to be interested in issuing an injunction at the preliminary hearing than the real one.

I’ll withhold judgement from the judge until I read her final ruling sometime this summer.

By: Cal's dead

Cal's dead — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 06:53:37 +0000

Berkeley. Tragedy, farce, and comedy, all done up with the nice aroma of patchouli and days-old trash.

Is anyone truly surprised by this? I mean, really?

If there is one thing the EnviroKooks are quite adept at, it is judge shopping. It looks to me like they got themselves a good one, who will probably have the ability and the authority to keep this training center project bollixed up for the long term.

The university has no choice but to appeal, and to do so vigorously.

If taken at its logical conclusion, this decision bodes very badly for any kind of retrofit project on The Crack House. This project was stopped merely because it was adjacent to the Hayward Fault – IOW, pretty much the entire Kal campus will fit under that criterion (the trees involved were planted after the stadium was constructed, and are a side issue, IMHO).

The NIMBY phenomenon has been pressed and formed by the Berkeley folks into BANANA – â€œbuild absolutely nothing, anywhere near anything.â€

If it turns out the Rai-Duhs decide to bunk in with the 49ers in Santa Clara, perhaps Kal could get a decent rental rate at the Mausoleum.

By: Seth

Seth — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 07:24:06 +0000

My God, I like your thinking! This project needs passionate people like you! Continue to speak out, never allow your voice or feelings to be trivialized or silenced. That is what these protestors want you to believe more than anything.

By: joshiemac

joshiemac — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 03:28:24 +0000

Today was a dark day for all fans of the Blue and Gold. I’m finding it very difficult to be positive. I wouldn’t blame Tedford one bit if he picked up and left tomorrow. (Well, that’s not true but you get my point). I’m not a man of violence but I’m filled with wrath & hatred when I think of what damage those protestors have done to the University of California.

If this lawsuit drags on into the football season with continued uncertainty to the final status of the upgrade, I would adivise these protestors to be nowhere near the stadium on Sept 1st. It could get ugly

Nobody ever said being a Cal fan is easy.