I say yes

It's their land and those trees are no more than 80 years old. They're hardly "sacred". Get real. Protect 1000 years old redwood trees. Too much energy is being spent for scrub oak. As a furniture maker I can't even make something out of the wood. It's firewood.

I say yes

I'm a Cal student and we need more room for athletes! UC is promising to plant 2 trees for every 1 removed. I'd sympathize more with the sitters were they UCB students, but they're not, many are from outside the area.

Work locally folks!

I say yes

I guess it's not unusual in self-centered Berkeley that none of the comments takes into account the needs of the Berkeley students, in their thousands. Certainly their needs should take precendence over the preservation of a site of dubious historical value.

I say yes

Look, guys.
Really, the trees are NOT that big of a deal. The UC has agreed to plant two trees for every one they cut down, and just because those trees are a little old doesn't mean we should hesitate to give Cal Athletics the facilities it needs! Cal athletes are having to CHANGE IN THEIR CARS instead of a decent locker room. Cutting down a few old trees DOES NOT MATTER!

I say yes

The stadium area is old and in need of restoration/renewal. This is the first step toward that restoration. The University's plans will for the most part preserve the beauty of the site. It is too bad that some trees must be cut down. I think the offer by the University to plant new trees is a fair compromise.
-Paul Deuter

I say yes

This question should be about building the Student Athlete Center, not about tree removal. We live in an urban area with and there are still so many trees on the hill above campus.

I say yes

Although as a Cal fan, I hate to see the stadium retrofit and expansion delayed, but I am glad to see that the project will be subject to close scrutiny by an judge who thought the matter was important enough to stay any construction. When the project is ultimately approved, no one will be able to say that they did not have a chance to air their greivances. Legally, the University did everything it should have done in terms of seismological investigation and the oak tree/lighthing issues, while understandably important to some, are outweighed by the beneift the project will bring to the University and ultimately the Berkeley community, and impacts will be mitigated by new oak groves. The University agreed to eliminate the parking structure, but the City refused. It's unclear what the City's strategy is here -- if the State, USGS, and numerous independent experts say this project will be safe, I really can't understand why the City is doing this. Either way, the CUniversity wants to put the litigation behind them and move forward before Tedford is poached and the City has the University in a great position tactically to get the concessions they want (especially since any appeal would hurt the University more). The parties need to find a good mediator and settle.

I say yes

Safety of human life is paramount. Construction of the new seismically safe facility, seismic upgrades to the stadium, along with improved access for emergency vehicles and evacuations, should proceed immediately. If the current site was truly unsafe for the SAHPC and stadium, does the city have an alternate site for an entirely new stadium complex, not just the SAHPC?

I say yes

I don't live in Berkeley. If I did, I would be outraged that so much tax money is being wasted on this frivolous suit. Not only is the city wasting revnues contributed by tax paying citizens, but it is forcing the University to do likewise.

I say yes

Much of what is now housed in the ancient walls of Memorial Stadium will be re-settled in the new facilities. The new facilities will be built to modern specifications and will be much safer for all inhabitants that currently reside in the Stadium walls.

Three trees to one seems like a very fair ratio. Especially when some of the trees to be replaced have live their normal life span and will need replacing in any case, soon. How about old limbs falling and injuring walkers? Where does that liability fall?

This project can only produce great results for the University and the City of Berkeley.

ps: Witout the University, there probably would not be much of a City in Berkeley. Remeber, "Cows in Berkeley"? Think about it.

I say yes

The University has studied this project for years, and the community has had appropriate opportunity for input. The decision to live close to the Berkeley campus, and proximate to a large football stadium was made long after the construction of the site by local residents. College football, its attendees and the business it brings to our community, both campus and city, are all elements of college life and the history of this University. The new center being proposed will not increase vehicle traffic, and rationalizes the current access. This project is sensible, and approriate.

I say yes

Just another example of the wealthy neighbors vs. the University. Good Lord, I do not understand why people move next to a major university and then complain that there are students and student activities there. And the 'alternatives' suggested are so elitist and anti-student (i.e. put the stadium on the waterfront, far from the university, from BART, and on landfill).

I say yes

City of Berkeley Council Members: Being progressive does not mean that the sensationalist superminority is to be heard to the point of excluding all other viewpoints. While am a proud Cal grad, live nearby, and spend a fair share of dollars within Berkeley City limits, this is a prime example of why I have never desired to be a resident of the City. What an unbelievable waste of money, time, and politics.

For the love of Oski, don't bite the hand that feeds you. Berkeley would simply yet another Oakland/Albany/El Cerrito without the University. Become informed on your own, not by listening to others (pro or against), and vote on what you can conclude from the facts, not from a desire to pander to the crazies who have made it their life goal to 'fight the man' in the absence of anything better to do.

I say yes

The revenue brought in from thousands of fans helps create jobs for the citizens, students and business owners of Berkeley.

I say yes

Something very special is happening here in Berkeley; opening day 70,000 plus people came to UCB including thousands of TN fans, some of the best folks around. What could be better for Berkeley?

Go Bears, Renovation not litigation

I say yes

The retrofit project will improve safety and access to the stadium. After a recent game, tens of thousands of people exited the stadium in utter darkness. The area was completely unsafe and needs to be improved with better stairs, landscaping and DISABLED access.

As for the high performance center, there is a gender equity issue here. Women athletes (some of Olympic quality) don't have adequate locker and training facilities. Our athletes, students, alumni and supporters deserve a world-class facility.

I say yes

The SAHPC, if built, will provide a safer, state of the art building to protect athletes, coaches, trainers and staff from 13 of the University's 27 womens and mens sports teams. In addition to allowing these young women and men competitors greater opportunties to improve their athletic and academic performance in a structure far less at risk from possible earthquake damage, any competitive gains realized by the ahtletic program itself will result in higher revenues and business taxes to the City of Berkeley. This is a great opportunity for both the University and the City of Berkeley to strive to attain the highest levels of achievement, a goal quite befitting the lofty standards that have been set by our predecessors, academically, athletically and in public perception around the world.

I say yes

I am a Professor at Cal and has been living in Berkeley for the last 30 years, within a mile or so from the campus. I consider myself as progressive in politics and active in the environmental movement. I have a lifetime of academic research on social issues and movements. I have to say that I find the opposition to the construction of the student athlete center highly irresponsible, uninformed, and misguided.

I say yes

The positives far outweigh the negatives. The benefits to all athletes and sports programs will be tremendous. Already it is clear that a nationally recognized football program can positively impact all athletic activities, as well as overall University of California stature. The increased media exposure not only benefits the campus, but the East Bay as well. Football may be the cash engine that supports other sports, but it is the athletes in those areas that go on to a scholarship degree from Cal to become the leaders of the future. The alternative, to remain with the status quo, leaves the University with 19th century facilities. It is time to move forward.

I say yes

A new student center will help attract top talent from across the country. With that talent, UCB and the City of Berkeley will get the attention and recognition of other top athletic programs across the country. That recognition and respect will extend from the University to the City of Berkeley , and the rest of the SF Bay Area as well. It will bring the area back to the prominence and recognition it deserves and quiet the cynics and critics who may have previously written off our concerns and contributions.