Update on court case
(Written by kencraw)
Scout has posted an article on the first day of the trial.
It’s hard to know from the article just how well things are going. Frequent commentor Joshiemac is rightly concerned that the city is arguing that a “common sense” definition of adding and altering should be used and the University is arguing for the building code, particulaly when the judge said that common sense (notice no quotes) definitions should be used in favor of both legislative intent and experts, in that order.
That said, I don’t think it is as bad as it might seem. First of all the “common sense” the city is using isn’t common sense at all. I’m sorry, no common sense argument would suggest that I’m modifying my house when I replace the sidewalk around it or build a detatched garage and put a walkway between the two, which is basically what the city is arguing, that the extended walkway around the stadium that is the roof of the SAHPC is a change to the stadium itself. Just because the city is using the words “common sense” doesn’t mean their argument is. Also, notice that the three items the judge listed to choose between (common sense, legislative intent, and expert opinion), none of them are actual law. In other words, this is what should be used in the case where the law does not have a definition for words used in legislation. While the specific law in question does not specifically define what an addition or alteration is, there are other California laws that do. So this is not common sense versus the experts, this is “common sense” versus the laws of California, a significant difference.
I will say this, either Chris Avery is doing a bad job of explaining the University’s legal arguments or the University is not doing a very good job making its case. Why isn’t there a rebutal about whether the city’s “common sense” argument is indeed common sense, particularly after the judge indicates that that common sense is primary? Why is it that they’re not saying that expert opinion is not the same thing as California law that defines these words in a very relevant sense? Mr. Avery admits that he’s no lawyer, he’s a sports reporter, and so it may be that these arguments are being made, but in ways that either don’t come across in the article or that he didn’t understand amongst all the legal language. Said another way, I don’t fault Mr. Avery if he’s not properly reporting all the legal nuances. He’s doing better than Carolyn Jones at the Chronicle or whatever flunky the Oakland Tribune has sent over. This is difficult stuff to explain, particularly in a condensed form like an article.
The final note to bring up is that it looks like the trial will split over at least into Friday and the judge is already putting contingencies in place in case the trail needs to go until Monday or Tuesday. The length of the trial also seems to be extending everyone’s ruling expectations to at least two weeks if not more. In other words, a decision the week of the Oregon State game seems to be the earliest possible scenario.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
I have always wondered what the City of Berkeley’s hidden agenda is on this whole mess. Very early on I read it was money. They wern’t getting any! Any money made on the parking lots would go to UC. They claim if you have more cars going up the hill they will have to pay more overtime to the Berkeley Police to direct traffic after the game is over. Why don’t they just use UC police to direct traffic? Maybe with more parking places there will be less cars towed at $200 a pop that are parked in tow zones.
For a city that usually could care less about it’s citizen’s, their concern over people that might be injured in a masive earthquake is laughable. They say because of the fact that the Hayward fault goes underneath the stadium that it is worthless. The Hayward fault does not start and stop at Memorial Stadium! Does this mean that the hundreds of homes and business’ that were built on the fault line are worthless as well? Maybe they should have their property taxs lowered to zero. It’s a shame that a great University like CAL has to put up with the crap that comes out of Berkeley City Hall.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
The more and more I think about it, the City of Berkeley only has one motivation: passifying their voters.
In one sense that is good… I wish my elected representatives actually wanted to passify their voters. But it also means that when your voters (note that I don’t say citizens) are completely irrational in their pursuit of a ridiculously unsustainable and muttled ideology, it means that the elected officials jump through all kinds of irrational hoops that accomplish very little, to passify them.
Said another way, they’re just doing what they’ve been told to do by the people who put them in office. It’s no more underhanded or conspiracy laden than that.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
I agree, Ken. I think COB’s motive in this matter is as simple as wanting to passifying their voters.
Still, if this stadium project fails because of their lawsuit I will never spend another dollar in the city of Berkeley. I will do all my pregame at the Faculty Club on campus and buy all my Cal stuff at the ASUC. Perhaps I should start now, but I’ve been going to Kips with my dad for over 15 years and I would really miss going there.
It will break my heart but I couldn’t bring myself to support the city after doing what they did–no matter what their motive may be.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Why you gotta hate on Chris Avery? Is Chris Avery gonna have to choke a (censored)?
September 20th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
TwistNHook, we run a clean ship here at EMFMV and foul language will not be tolerated. I always give people the benefit of the doubt so don’t worry about it this time, I just censored the minimum amount of text necessary to leave the comment up. Just know that it is not acceptable here and everything will be fine.
But to comment on the content of your comment, I really wasn’t trying to hate on Chris Avery. I think he does a pretty good job. I was really just trying to temper my frustration with the University lawyers by saying there may have been aspects of the argument the lawyers were making that Chris Avery didn’t communicate in his article.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
I, too, have wondered what in the world the City’s hoped-for endgame could be. Town-gown relations are always tricky, and not just in Berkeley. While it seems obvious that the City should be thrilled to have such a great institution within its boundaries, it doesn’t come without its costs. Imagine how frustrated you would be, either as an elected official or a permanent resident, to have such a big presence in your midst and yet have virtually no legal authority/control over it. So I don’t fault Tom Bates and Co. for using every legal and political weapon in their arsenal to try to get the University to cry uncle and make some concessions.
Still, with the main stadium retrofit still to come, the HPAC seems to be a very premature battle to fight. While we’re all concerned about the impact of a UC loss in this case (i.e., Tedford perhaps leaving for Ann Arbor or Lincoln), the City has perhaps even more on the line. Imagine if the University wins; the City will have a much harder time down the road waging yet another costly legal-political-PR campaign against the stadium project when the general public will have largely concluded that this issue is over, that the City had its day in court, and that the courts already ruled in favor of the UC.
My guess is that the City, and its backers up on Panoramic Hill, got dragged into this fight somewhat against their will. They probably were hoping to quietly get a few concessions here, but all in preparation for a much bigger fight to come over the stadium itself. Then a bunch of idiots climbed up the trees, turning this into a media circus, and suddenly, the time for the main battle was now; there was no holding back for later.
Ironically, it just may turn out that Mr. Running Wolf will end up being the UC’s greatest friend, fomenting a premature battle that the City has little realistic hope of winning (particularly in the long run) and paving the way for the UC to rebuild its stadium–OUR stadium–almost at will. At least that’s what I’m hoping. Go Bears!
September 20th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
I disagree California Pete. The City couldn’t wait and they knew it. The battleground was now or never.
They couldn’t wait because there’s nothing to get any traction with once the SAHPC is built, with the lone exception of a possible 2nd deck to the stadium on the east side (which is so far out no one is thinking about it). But right now, even though it’s not really what their complaint is about, they have something to complain about that has a hope in court: new facilities that’ll cause problems (or so they can claim).
It’s pretty hard to argue against repairing rundown and unsafe facilities that when they’re done will hold less people, particularly when they can’t attach the dollar figures of the SAHPC to the 50% rule. New construction however, now they’ve got something to bite into.
Speaking of which, here’s an item that the city is speaking out of both sides of their mouth: Is the problem that they’re doing new construction on an earthquake fault or is the problem that they’re expanding the existing structure and therefore violating the 50% rule? It can’t be both. If the SAHPC was indeed part of the existing structure and they could build the SAHPC and seismically retrofit the stadium for less than 50% of the stadium value, then there would be no need to prove that there was no earthquake fault under the SAHPC site as it wouldn’t be a new structure.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:01 am
Legally, you very well may be right, Ken. And I definitely think the City was banking on attacking the SAHPC as “new” construction violating the A-P law. The fact that the City no longer seems to be pressing that case and has moved to Plan B, trying to redefine the SAHPC as part of the stadium retrofit, tells me their case is quite desperate (which doesn’t necessarily mean unwinnable.)
Still, this is very much a political battle, too, and I think Panoramic Hill neighbors’ concerns re: lighting, obstructed views, noise, etc., would have been better served by a more patient approach. While NIMBY, many of those concerns are potentially sympathetic, but they were long ago buried under the “save the oaks” hogwash. I know I, for one, would be awfully upset to have Zachary Running Wolf become the public face of my cause. As bad as the Chronicle’s coverage has been, that over-the-top-satirical graphic giving biographical profiles of the tree sitters pretty much sealed the PR victory for the University. Indeed, it’s pretty hard to imagine a less sympathetic cast of characters. Only a dramatic win in court could resuscitate the City’s PR campaign.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:12 am
Well I’ll agree with you there. I’m sure the PHA people don’t like being upstaged by the tree-sitters. Although I think so many of them are ultra-liberals themselves so they have a hard time even personally justifying being upset with them. Add in that they seem to be on the same side and might have an outside shot at helping them accomplish their goals and I think that they grudgingly accept them despite not liking being upstaged.
The PHA’s problem is that there cause isn’t sympathetic no matter what. They didn’t build there first and the stadium is so hidden from view and asthetically benign that it’s hard to get anyone besides themselves worked up about the matter.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:48 am
Well, Ken, I apologize. It’s just a kwote from an old ep of Dave Chappelle. I will not do it in the future. Won’t swear again. Unless Ayoob counts as a swear. If so, I can make no promises.
At GoldenBlogs, we run a PG-13 ship. So, minor nudity, swears, and EXTREME VIOLENCE. Oh, America, how I love thee.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:15 am
No problem TwistNHook. I know a lot of other sites don’t care as much and that’s fine by me. I visit many of them including your PG-13 site. 🙂 I’m just a no-swearing kinda guy and I like my site to reflect that as well. But because lots of other sites don’t care, it also means I don’t get offended when someone doesn’t know and treats this like other sites. Everyone I’ve had to censor has been gracious about being censored and has continued to comment respecting my wishes. I’m glad that’s been the case. You seem like a nice guy so I have every reason to expect you’ll do the same.
As to whether Ayoob should be a swear word… you’re probably right that it should be. Something like “What the AYOOB was that!?!” 🙂 (Poor guy… he was the nicest fellow, just not a I-A quarterback)
September 21st, 2007 at 5:56 pm
As a fellow Censoree, I must concur that Ayoob, while a fine guy, should never have taken a snap. The thing about his playing “technique” that most bothered me was that darn smile he always beamed whenever he was picked, or fumbled, or whatever horrific else thing he wound up doing!
It never failed, there’d be a really bad play and the TV camera always managed to get a shot of Ayoob with the big grin…Dude, you just screwed up, show some anger or remorse or discouragment… ANYTHING BUT A SMILE!!