I am neutral

The cost of building this Center is skyrocketing while Zachery Running Wolf and others sit petulantly in trees and demand their own way.

I don't care so much either way about where the much needed Center is located -- but I think it is imperative that the University not back down because of the actions of people who have broken laws and will break more. Masks seem inappropriate when acts of civil disobedience are commited -- this is just bullying.

On a different note -- the trees in the grove are approaching the end of of their lifecycle, and will die in the next few years whether or not others are planted in their place.

I am neutral

You know one of the things that I am struck by as I read this is the divisiveness in the comments on both sides. This sounds very much like a Blue-state/Red-state kind of dichotomy to me. With the crazy liberal tree supporters referring the university as Berkeley while the football-frenzied private developers refer to is as Cal.

As Alumni we are smarter than that. Can we have a discussion that tries to bring resolution instead of digging our heels in?

Let's consider facts and consider sentiment as well.

No one wants to chain-saw trees in an ideal world. And no one wants to see our beloved university lose on a great opportunity. I'm sure among all of us there can be a solution that is equally satisfying.

We are Cal/Berkeley dammit! We should be able to find a brilliant way to resolve this, shouldn't we? I think transplanting the trees might prove difficult because of their massive root systems, but is it possible there is a way to work around it? To save these trees or at least most of them to build a facility that will be of genuine benefit to everyone?

If you support the Oaks, ask yourself how you would feel if this wasn't a grove but rather a barren hill that was an under-utilized space that was unattractive. Conversely if you support the student center ask yourself if you would support cutting the trees down if this center wasn't for anything productive at all but rather for something mundane like a maintenance shack.

I think what we have is our desire to protect our environment (clearly something very important and sensitive to all of us) pitted against our caring for our university's future. There must be a creative solution somewhere that can simultaneously enhance the grove and create a meeting space for all students and athletes. Perhaps instead of creating further division we can use this as an opportunity to create a junction where we can understand each other's positions. I challenge my fellow Alumni engineers, plant biologists, policy makers, landscape architects, social psychologists, environmental designers, and leaders to step up and make a contribution of ideas instead of simply making a one-sided argument.

Let's be innovative. Let us be unified. Let us be Berkeley.

I am neutral

WHAT IS THE DEFINATION OF "ADJACENT TO"?
THIS IS HUGE PROJECT, BUT THERE ARE NEVER, NEVER ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OR DRAWING TO SHOW WHERE THIS IS PROJECTED TO BE BUILT...I HAVE STATED OVER AND OVER, PICTURE WORTH 1000 WORDS...SHOW THE PICTURES OR DRAWING WHEN ASKING FOR DECISION.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA OWN LAND AND HAS ALWAYS BUILT PREVIOUSLY WHATEVER STRUCTURE THEY WANTED, WHAT MAKES THIS SO DIFFERENT?
ARE THEY GOING OR ASKING FOR NEW FACILITY TO BE BUILT LOOKING EAST FROM STRAWBERRY ROAD ABOVE GALEY ROAD TO STADIUM OR...LOOKING WEST BELOW GALEY ROAD FROM BANCROFT AVE. TO UNIVERSITY FACILITY WHICH HOUSES DEPT. OF OPTOMOTERY?
I PERSONALLY LOVE THE OAK TREES ALONG GALEY ROAD AND DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM STADIUM AND WOULD NOT LIKE TO SEE ANY OAK TREES DEMOLISHED....
ARE YOU PERHAPS TALKING ABOUT STRUCTURE TO BE BUILT BEHIND HAAS PAVILLION WHERE UC PLAYS BASKETBALL, THAT IS VERY OPEN GREENERY...?????
IF BUILT WHERE EXSISTING LA CROSSE/RUGBY/WHATEVER PLAYING FIELD THAT IS FENCED OFF AND THERE...IT WOULD APPEAR TO BE AMPLE ROOM FOR FACILITY....TIGHTWAD HILL WOULD STILL BE EXSISTING AS IT SHOULD NEVER BE DETHROWNED FOR ALL THOSE WHO HAVE IN PAST AND GOING FORWARD BE DEPRIVED OF TO WATCH CAL PLAY FOOTBALL.
WELL HERE AGAIN, IF I HAD MY WAY, PEOPLE'S PARK WOULD BE A DORMITORY WITH PARK AND NOT THE GATHERING PLACE FOR THE RIF-RAFT AND SCRUNGE OF THE EARTH IT HABITATS..IF UNIVERSITY REGENTS WOULD STAND FIRM WITH WHAT IS BEST NEEDED TO THE UNIVERSITY, PEOPLES PARK WOULD BE LONG GONE. TOO MUCH POLITICS AND NOT ENOUGH REALITY.

I am neutral

I am neutral

I am neutral