Next Football Matchup: Golden Bears v. Coastal Oaks
The next tree the Berkeley football team faces may not be from the inferior side of the San Francisco Bay.
A furor is developing over the potential removal of a grove of natural coastal oak trees dating back to the founding of the University for part of the Memorial Stadium renovation project. From the Daily Cal:
Current university plans for stadium expansion include a Student Athlete High Performance Center, which will be built over an oak grove west of Memorial Stadium bordering Piedmont Avenue.
A group of about two dozen local citizens calling itself Save the Oaks at the Stadium and other environmental groups say the expansion is not worth destroying the oak grove. They say the grove has some trees that are hundreds of years old with trunks as large as five feet in diameter…
Environmental groups point to a city ordinance that makes it illegal to cut down any mature oak tree. However, because the university is a state institution, UC Berkeley is not required to abide by the local law.
“We think when you have something irreplaceable like this in an urban area, that you do everything you can to take care of it because it contributes to the well-being of all of us,” said Doug Buckwald, a Berkeley resident and member of Save the Oaks at the Stadium.
So, it seems the trade is: a grove of nearly bicentennial trees for a gym exclusively for athletes. I’m all for sports, but the cost doesn’t seem to be worth the benefit.
Waste Today takes a little more radical approach:
…This is not hippie-dippy Berkeley-dwelling tree-hugging envrio-bullshit: It’s just common fucking sense. We already have the RSF (that we students who don’t work out are forced to subsidize, by the way), we need another gym like we need another asshole.
… Some of these trees have been growing since the university was chartered in 1868. To delete something that old and that much a part of Berkeley’s history for something as stupid as a gym is absurd. It defies logic - why eliminate something cool and irreplacable for something so stupid?
…Frankly, this brings me to another topic that warrants some discussion: When are we going to stop this pampering of student athletes? What the hell do they do to deserve this kind of treatment?
It’s called alumni donations Ben, and it is directly related to the quality of our athletic programs. If the Bears win, we donate more. If we lose like we did to Tennessee last weekend repeatedly throughout the season, mark my words - donations will be down. By the way, go look at those trees and tell me how many of them are “oaks”, because they aren’t. They are mostly Australian Eucalyptus trees - a tree that is not even indigenous to California. A tree that is also known as the “widow maker” for when it falls down in the strong Santa Ana Winds - or as they call it in Northern California - el diablo the devil winds. Do these eucalyptus trees have history? Sure they do! - as invasive species. The few outlier trees are in fact oak trees, yes - but they have a disease termed “sudden oak death syndrome”, just ask anyone in the College of Natural Resources. They are dying and some are already dead (ask an arborist what a dead tree looks like), so why shouldn’t we build a world class athletic facility that will “grow” taller than any of those trees ever were. Meanwhile, wasn’t it in a tree that that guy hung himself from a couple years ago down near West Circle?
- Do I sound like a developer yet? This new job is really crafting my pro-development mentality.
Comment by Ian — September 8, 2006 @ 3:33 pm
“This is a university, and universities are for academic pursuits. Motherfucking lacrosse is not an academic pursuit, it’s a hobby. The fact that we recruit students with the intelligence of a gravy boat - kids who otherwise wouldn’t have gotten accepted to Chico fucking State - and give them full rides to a top-20 school like Cal just because they play a sport is stupid. I know we all like to watch Football games, but the amount of money and time already being lavished on these guys is borderline criminal.
Student athletes are already getting one huge cookie: A CAL DEGREE THEY DON’T DESERVE. Despite getting into a prestigeous university due only to being able to kick a ball around, they are getting the same degree as you and I.”
Amen, Waste!
Comment by Bhanu Singh — September 8, 2006 @ 5:18 pm
I agree that the trees should be saved. They are a beautiful addition to this campus.
Comment by Range Rover — September 8, 2006 @ 9:11 pm
Waste is an idiot. Athletes don’t “deserve” a degree. Does he “deserve” a degree? Based on what? “Spoiled rich white boy from the suburbs” syndrome?
Comment by commodore anonymous — September 8, 2006 @ 9:46 pm
I wonder if Waste wants to expel musicians and writers who wouldn’t have been admitted based on their high school GPA? Or is it only the dark-skinned football players that arouse his ire?
Comment by commodore anonymous — September 8, 2006 @ 9:49 pm
Oh, WHATEVER. I’ll be happy to let you know that all of my alumna dollars are going to the athletic department and won’t go to an academic pursuit of any kind. If it weren’t the oak trees (or eucalyptus) the people in the area would be looking for something else to complain about because they weren’t consulted with this project. I’m surprised it’s JUST oak trees. I think they are forced to complain on principle.
Comment by N — September 8, 2006 @ 11:24 pm
I thought portland state’s nickname was the coastal oaks
Comment by Anonymous — September 9, 2006 @ 8:34 pm
Okay, just have a few thoughts. Ben has some good points…most people who know me know that I am very appreciative and knowledgeable about the history of this campus.
…BUT. I just have to say I’m quite annoyed with these lefty Berkeley citizen groups that hate the University and try to encroach upon its’ business. I would put money on the fact that I believe they 1. Aren’t at all affiliated with Cal, 2. Don’t go to football games, and 3. Probably hate the University.
With that much disattachment from us and from Athletics, seriously who are they to add their opinion into the mix?
Comment by Eddy Crochetiere — September 10, 2006 @ 2:13 am
why do we have to pack buildings in here like sardines and wreck the campus?
anyway, maybe the solution to this problem is in another problem. since telegraph avenue is going to shit, fine, maybe thats a good thing. let it go to shit, and the university can buy up a few blocks and build their sports stadium bullshit. better yet, have the city council eminent domain a few blocks and sell ‘em to uc berkeley hella cheap. problem solved. trees left alone. stupid empty small-business-death-trap store fronts gone bye bye. student athletes and other campus expasion needs met. and everyone wins (except the freakazoid berkeley landlords). perfect.
Comment by mano — September 10, 2006 @ 2:18 am
meaning, i agree that berkeley has to expand in the next few decades, but the way they are doing it is retarded. the oaks are a secondary issue. the main issue is you cant just keep putting new buildings into the campus. there isnt enough room and they keep destroying the open spaces and the result sucks. the logical, holistic thing to do is grow the damn damn campus. thats how it got where it is today.
Comment by mano — September 10, 2006 @ 2:23 am
Wow, I actually agree with Mano here. Razing Telegraph makes much more sense than does razing the scenic parts of campus.
The other solution to the expansion problem, of course, would be to have a hard cap on enrollment at Berkeley, so that expanded facilities aren’t continually needed. (Those students could be served by expansion at other UC campuses, or by the creation of new UCs like Merced.)
Comment by BCR Boy — September 10, 2006 @ 10:35 am
I would make the point that athletic prowress is just as much a part of this University’s history as academic. You cannot separate academics from athletics here because they are both rooted in this institution (regardless of what you think of student athletes). Indeed, it was athletics, not academics, that brought our university much respect among the great universities of the east before the turn of the 20th century.
And it’s time to stop lumping student athletets together into one big blob of half-witted undeserving studnets. Have you met, much less gone to the games of some of our other deserving teams? Field Hockey? Lacrosse? Soccer? Our national champion Rugby team? Over half of the athletes have GPAs over 3.0. This is while participating in an NCAA sport. Sure, they don’t deserve degress. Not at all.
The facilities to be built by the University are not exclusively for the football team. They are for all of our great athletes.
Comment by N — September 10, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
isn’t the inferior side of the bay the one your school is located?
Comment by stanny — September 10, 2006 @ 10:08 pm
To agree with N, only the foolish neglect the contribution of athletics to Berkeley. Let me assure you that there are plenty of these so called dumb jocks out there that have the drive to get up at five in the morning, hit a hard workout, and still take care of it in the classroom. They are the people that best represent Cal. Hah, and one couldn’t have picked a poorer example than lacrosse. Most players from the women’s team at Cal hail from elite prep schools on the East Coast, that which demand performance on the field and in the classroom. The men’s lacrosse team has ZERO recruited athletes. Yeah that’s right. All were accepted on their own academic merits. Congrats to berkeley for finally providing the facilities that cal athletes deserve. Let the maligned of the city cry over the dirty and neglected area west of the stadium. So next time you are in class in goldman school of public policy, or many other major campus buildings, do a little research into who donated the money to make that place possible. More times than not it will be a cal athletetics alumnus.
Comment by calfan — September 10, 2006 @ 11:12 pm
If our alums are donating based on our football record (and ignoring budget crises, other schools luring away our faculty, etc., general institutional pride) then we’ve got even bigger problems than I had imagined.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — September 11, 2006 @ 9:26 am
Open your eyes. General instutional pride at Cal is low, that’s why we have such a low percentage of alumni that donate. That mere fact alone impacts our ranking in the US News and World Report to a large degree. Fraternity and Sorority alumni, which represent a 10-15% share of all alumni, provide 40% of all university annual donations - and that arguably is due to the athletic program. If the University improved the undergraduate as well as alumni experience, alumni donations would increase dramatically do to “general institutional pride”. Budget Crises - as a reason to donate? If you try to plug a leaking dam with your thumb, how long will it last? Budget crises are mostly due to incompetent administrators. Remember, Cal has an annual budget in excess of $1 billion - and that doesn’t include the roughly $400 million in annual grants for research. $1 billion is more than enough to run an educational institution this size, just look at comparably sized universities. Bhanu, you’re a moron.
Comment by Ian — September 11, 2006 @ 2:17 pm
Let’s make a simple comparison here. If you donate money to the athletic department, it can be used to renovate the stadium, improve weightrooms/facilities, etc. Which in turn will help us recruit top notch players, increasing the average number of wins per season.
On the other hand, if you donate money to the university, birgeneau will waste on his overpaid “diversity czar” and bogus relocation expenses for all of the overpaid administrators. Which seems like a better use of your money? Which seems like it will lead to constructive results.
And yes, Bhanu, a large fraction of the alumni who donate are influenced by the success of the football. I guess that’s a ‘problem’, or whatever you call it. Go put that in your crackpipe and smoke it.
Comment by chet (CEO) — September 11, 2006 @ 2:51 pm
Amen, Chet.
Comment by Ian — September 11, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
Yes - it’s stupid that the city tries to put boundaries on the direction the university can expand. I’d say that there are plenty of spaces to the NW and SW side of campus that aren’t intensively used by residential or business. The complaints that a few owners put out over construction are dumb because the university has been here a long time, and other people have to deal with traffic on their street too.
Comment by ESS — September 12, 2006 @ 6:50 am
Ian, how am I a moron? I agree with you that the undergrad/alumni experience needs to improve, and will only happen if enrollment is curbed and the University tries to deliver a more personalized experience rather than be a degree factory. At the same time, the standard of education can’t be improved without alumni dollars. Once it starts rolling in, you might be able to create a self-sustaining positive cycle.
You’re a moron for sitting around thinking that nothing can be done.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — September 12, 2006 @ 9:14 am
Chet, you’re an idiot if you think all the money to the University will go to Birgeneau. Earmark it for something specific if you have a problem with a discretionary fund.
If you think we can compete with private schools for faculty given how much they have grown their respective endowments, you’re the one on the crack. So keep donating your dollars to the athletic dept. and push us toward becoming the next Florida State. I’ll contribute to academic causes I support (the Library, or Regents Scholarships, for example) and hopefully Berkeley can retain the academic distinction that made it great in the first place.
I agree wholeheartedly, by the way, on your Diversity Czar comment. I’m no fan of Birge, and this is a HUGE waste of money and resources.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — September 12, 2006 @ 9:18 am
Bhanu, how are you a moron? Let us count the ways….
Also, “a personalized experience”? For people like you, with your walmart intellects and your mean-nothing platitudes, professors and grad students would sooner kick you square in the nuts than personalize your “learning experience” for you. You think you are entitled to some kind of consumer service, don’t you? Why, because you are paying money? Hahahaha, good one… If you don’t like it, don’t pay, see what happens.
Comment by mano — September 12, 2006 @ 10:12 am
ESS: Actually, much of the stuff the university would build wouldnt increase traffic. Practice facilities for athletes certainly wouldnt increase traffic. Neither would classroom space. Anyway, if traffic is a concern the thing to do is make parking even more expensive and impossible. Target the problem: cars.
Comment by mano — September 12, 2006 @ 10:18 am
One of the most frequent complaints about Cal: it’s too big and too bureaucratic. Being just a number offers quite the opposite of a “personalized” experience. It’s not about consumerism.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — September 12, 2006 @ 1:36 pm
Bhanu the moron,
I never said that nothing can be done to increase alumni donations, moron. In fact, contrary to your retarded statements, I made constructive suggestions in order to do so. I theorized that the student/alumni experience directly correlates to the level of alumni giving - you agreed. However, I never postulated that it would take more money to improve the experience. Again, the University has more than enough money - but their spending priorities, while well intentioned, have not shown the results that we should expect and demand. If money was reallocated and budgetary priorities re-evaluated, existing funds could have significantly greater impact on student/alumni experiences - thus impacting the rate of alumni giving.
Comment by Ian — September 12, 2006 @ 4:16 pm
Ian, first, let’s drop the name-calling.
Second, I would love to know where you think capital is being so unwisely spent. Faculty or administrator salaries? I don’t think so–we’re barely at market rate there. Vice Chancellor for Equity and Inclusion? A complete waste of cash, I agree.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — September 12, 2006 @ 4:40 pm
Bhanu,
It doesn’t really matter what MY funding priorities are, Bhanu - I am not on the Board of Regents, a member of the State Legislature, nor am I the Governor. However, I do vote.
Personally, I think spending priorities are completely out-of-whack at Berkeley. I can point you to a few areas in addition to your own selection of the Vice Chancellor of Equity and Inclusion. As we all are different, you may not agree with my personal views.
1)funding for enrollment growth - an increase of 5,000 students systemwide for 2006 was unneccessary and poorly planned
2)funding for academic preperation for k-12 students ($29 million)- should be done with the 40% of the state’s general fund that is already allocated to k-12 education. This should not come out of UC funds.
3)UC set-asides of new revenue generated from student fee increases uses to pay for financial aid (33% of undergrad fee increases) - excessive
4)I suggest using research overhead funds (about $3 billion systemwide) to pay for research space development -13% or $390 million is specifically provided for this, yet UC spends G/O bonds instead
5)$23 million of academic administration - excessive
6)only $2.5 million on student services administration (1/10 of what is spent on academic administration - this is clearly not equitable, and if you want to improve the collective experience this is definitely one area that needs shoring up
7)$18 million spent on Chancellors/Vice Chancellors - excessive
8)$7 million spent just on accounting
9)$2 million spent just on budgeting
10)$21 million spent on community relations - excessive
11)only $9 million spent on UCPD
12)$177 million spent on financial aid - a mind boggling figure
That is just a taste of where I believe the University has erred in planning and budgeting (and they spent $2 million to do this poorly). There are numerous other areas where funding is misprioritized - such as only $23 million is spent on intercollegiate athletics, an area that I contend has the potential to improve the collective experience and provide for increased ancillary revenue (alumni donations) in the future.
Its fairly easy to make impassioned arguments against any of the areas that I would slate to reallocate - but priorities are priorities - and mine are different than your’s, moron.
Comment by Ian — September 12, 2006 @ 5:25 pm
I was with you until the last two words. “Your’s” gives me an indication of your intelligence, and “moron” of your maturity.
You’re not on the Regents or the Legislature and you’re not Arnold, you say? Thank God.
Regarding spending priorities, I agree with (1) and (2). Your financial aid criticism is way off. However, the economic burden on the University would be ameliorated if it didn’t enthusiastically recruit the most economically disadvantaged students available.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — September 12, 2006 @ 5:39 pm
why is there any financial aid at all? students receiving financial aid probably won’t be able to donate big bucks from their inherited family fortunes after they graduate. how will we become a pseudo-ivy league school without inherited family fortunes?
Comment by chet (CEO) — September 12, 2006 @ 5:45 pm
Athletics does not drive donations to the University. Athletics is the most visible, but for the most part, donors give to academic pursuits despite athletics. There was a 1.44 billion dollar campaign that completed in 2001. Take a look at the football win-loss record then.
Comment by Anonymous — September 12, 2006 @ 5:50 pm
Anon, that’s true to some extent.
However, there has been a huge uptick in donations from the Berdahl to Birgeneau years (more than 2X). Some of this is due to an economic upswing, but many are attributing it to the success of the football team.
Who really knows. My point is, it would obviously be great if Berkeley alums donated regardless of how the football team was doing. Hell, look at Harvard. $600 million every year….
Comment by Bhanu Singh — September 12, 2006 @ 5:58 pm
I will say it again…Athletics does not drive donations to the University. Yes, the campus raised $347.5MM last year, a “record year”. Compare this to the fact that athletics lost $7.9MM last year, more than the $5.4MM lost the year before (stats based on searching the campus’ website; based on my experience, the loss should include donations, but I can be mistaken). Plus, it’s taking a while to raise the funds for the stadium. For the whole UC system, athletic donations comprise 3% of the total fundraising for 2004-05 - $1.2 billion, a 29% increase from the previous year (ucop.edu). Of course, the system includes Merced, Riverside, Santa Cruz, San Francisco, campuses with little or no intercollegiate athletics. Most alumni, while enjoying the entertainment of athletics, give more value to the academic mission of the University.
Comment by Anonymous — September 12, 2006 @ 7:57 pm
Mr Birgeneau, TEAR DOWN THESE OAKS !!!!!
Comment by BMLP — September 14, 2006 @ 8:43 am
Thank Birgeneau. In his inetrview he admitted he rejected 150 million in donations.
Comment by Anonymous — September 14, 2006 @ 7:53 pm
Correct. Because apparently they had “strings attached”.
If private schools rejected such donations, they’d bring nothing in.
Thanks for keeping us competitive, Birgie!
Comment by Anonymous — September 14, 2006 @ 9:06 pm
Hey, let’s be Florida State!
The Onion
Comment by Bhanu Singh — September 14, 2006 @ 10:12 pm
Hey, you’re a moron!
Comment by Ian — September 15, 2006 @ 8:57 am