What?
Man, Berkeley has some ridiculous things going on sometimes. But this, is kind of funny if you think about it.
http://www.ebdailynews.com/article/ebdn/2007-8-30-eb-tree-fence
Go ahead, read the article.
Keep in mind that:
1. Berkeley is in an area of California near two fault lines and is vulnerable to earthquakes.
2. Many buildings (homes included) in Berkeley are over one century old, and are structurally outdated, especially by modern seismic safety guidelines.
3. Many of these buildings are protected by several historic building protections, limiting the changes that can be done to or on the property.
4. Although seismic retrofitting is encouraged, it apparently isn't cost effective enough to pursue for many property-owners.
5. Furthermore, the city of Berkeley seems to make it very difficult for new development to pop up wherever able. There are several buildings or sections of the city (and the eastbay in general) that could use a bit of prettying up, modernizing, commercializing; and there are areas where zoning for higher density buildings (urban renewal, you can even use the dirty word... gentrification... if you will) would make a nice difference. But there is too much red tape to get through, and perhaps it scares investors away.
If a bad earthquake hits, a lot of buildings are doomed. I've read in the paper about lack of seismic retrofits, and large numbers of retrofits done incorrectly. The university wants to rebuild a complex. And people get in the way because of a few trees.
This isn't like FIU plowing over the natural preserve for building space. We're not talking about a young university that greedily eats up it's own natural space, with most of it's buildings in tip-top structural shape. In fact, most of it's buildings aren't over 20 years old. We're talking about an OLD campus, a historic campus, the first in the University of California system, which coincidentally practically sits on a fault line.
The university is concerned about the seismic integrity of it's older athletic buildings, and naturally wants to build support and make progress for its athletic teams (it's where Unis make the money, who could blame them?). It has every right, because development is all on its own property.
But some dirty hippies with weed-stink on them need to feel like they are saving the world, so they climb up into a few trees to look like heroic environmentalists. Entire fucking acres of land are plowed over every day for irresponsible development, all over the state, the country, and the world, and these guys are worried about a few oak trees on a university campus.
In my opinion, the social progress made for the university by constructing a new facility outweighs the environmental progress made by keeping the oak trees. You're worried about the oak population on the university? Team up with the California oak society or something, and try to force the university to keep a balanced ratio of development to natural areas, if they aren't doing that already. Fund raise for tree planting and landscaping at the university, protest the lack of aesthetic greenery in areas you feel may need it. Don't stop the university from doing what they gotta do, it's not like they're building a second marlins stadium, for crying out loud.
And if you start a game of chess to defend your interests (in this case, these oak trees), don't go whining and crying when the opponent makes a move and puts you in check. Move out of it, or it's checkmate.
I swear. Fucking people around here are just itching to protest something, beat up the cops, or relive the sixties. Fuckin A, it's a small grove of trees not the Amazon! Not civil rights violations!! Shit. Focus your energy on the immigration debates or something, you stupid ass high school dropouts. And wear shoes. And your singing sucks!!! Stop playing that damn guitar!!
http://www.ebdailynews.com/article/ebdn/2007-8-30-eb-tree-fence
Go ahead, read the article.
Keep in mind that:
1. Berkeley is in an area of California near two fault lines and is vulnerable to earthquakes.
2. Many buildings (homes included) in Berkeley are over one century old, and are structurally outdated, especially by modern seismic safety guidelines.
3. Many of these buildings are protected by several historic building protections, limiting the changes that can be done to or on the property.
4. Although seismic retrofitting is encouraged, it apparently isn't cost effective enough to pursue for many property-owners.
5. Furthermore, the city of Berkeley seems to make it very difficult for new development to pop up wherever able. There are several buildings or sections of the city (and the eastbay in general) that could use a bit of prettying up, modernizing, commercializing; and there are areas where zoning for higher density buildings (urban renewal, you can even use the dirty word... gentrification... if you will) would make a nice difference. But there is too much red tape to get through, and perhaps it scares investors away.
If a bad earthquake hits, a lot of buildings are doomed. I've read in the paper about lack of seismic retrofits, and large numbers of retrofits done incorrectly. The university wants to rebuild a complex. And people get in the way because of a few trees.
This isn't like FIU plowing over the natural preserve for building space. We're not talking about a young university that greedily eats up it's own natural space, with most of it's buildings in tip-top structural shape. In fact, most of it's buildings aren't over 20 years old. We're talking about an OLD campus, a historic campus, the first in the University of California system, which coincidentally practically sits on a fault line.
The university is concerned about the seismic integrity of it's older athletic buildings, and naturally wants to build support and make progress for its athletic teams (it's where Unis make the money, who could blame them?). It has every right, because development is all on its own property.
But some dirty hippies with weed-stink on them need to feel like they are saving the world, so they climb up into a few trees to look like heroic environmentalists. Entire fucking acres of land are plowed over every day for irresponsible development, all over the state, the country, and the world, and these guys are worried about a few oak trees on a university campus.
In my opinion, the social progress made for the university by constructing a new facility outweighs the environmental progress made by keeping the oak trees. You're worried about the oak population on the university? Team up with the California oak society or something, and try to force the university to keep a balanced ratio of development to natural areas, if they aren't doing that already. Fund raise for tree planting and landscaping at the university, protest the lack of aesthetic greenery in areas you feel may need it. Don't stop the university from doing what they gotta do, it's not like they're building a second marlins stadium, for crying out loud.
And if you start a game of chess to defend your interests (in this case, these oak trees), don't go whining and crying when the opponent makes a move and puts you in check. Move out of it, or it's checkmate.
I swear. Fucking people around here are just itching to protest something, beat up the cops, or relive the sixties. Fuckin A, it's a small grove of trees not the Amazon! Not civil rights violations!! Shit. Focus your energy on the immigration debates or something, you stupid ass high school dropouts. And wear shoes. And your singing sucks!!! Stop playing that damn guitar!!