Friday, June 20, 2008

UC Stadium Decision (+ related antics)

Here's a collection of links regarding the stadium expansion project and the hippie occupation of the trees.  

Please feel free to contribute your thoughts and future links you may find to an open thread in the comments.

UC gym's fate could rest on support beam [via SF Chron]Hope everyone is enjoying their summer.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I did this for my writing req.

UC clearly won this won big time. There was little doubt that they would lose the AP Claim once the judge began taking expert evidence on the California Building Code.

The overwhelming win on the CEQA claim was a bit surprising. I haven't gotten through the whole opinion yet, but it seems that the only issue UC lost on was the proposition that they would double events at the Stadium. When I talked to Dan Mogulof, he told me that the reason for doubling events was that they were trying to make good use out of the stadium if they were spending all this money on it. But he also said he couldn't really describe what the other events would be, other than major political events like Kennedy in the 1960s. In other words, there's no football-related reason for the proposal to double events.

Who's the big winner? The UC's the big winner.

6/20/2008 9:26 AM  
Anonymous carbolic said...

Has anyone been paying attention to the SF Chronicle articles? They've been amazingly bad. When the opinion was first released, they published a completely erroneous article claiming that the UCB building plan was "illegal."

Now, Carolyn Jones is suggesting that a single support beam may be "illegal," because it is potentially worth more than 1/2 the total value of the stadium.

Just to point out the obvious: this is a $600k beam. The University has valued the stadium at $600 million.

Even if the unviersity's figure is overstated--there's no way that the stadium is worth less than the average house in Berkeley.

6/20/2008 9:51 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home