I do not understand... The cops put up 2 fences, but they let them put a rope up to the tree to come and go? If the kid wanted to leave, why didnt he just climb down and walk out? Are they even students? If so, don't they need to go to class?
1. They've been up there since Dec. 2, 2006, well before they put any fence up.
2. No, they are not students. I have chatted with a few of them. Terribly misguided individuals who feel that they can protest for the sake of protesting because it is Berkeley. I'd venture the majority of them are upper-crust Northeasterners who decided to have their "Into The Wild" moment on their parents' dime. Mario Savio is spinning in his grave.
Here is a summary of why they are there:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... MOUK81.DTL
Basically, it is a sideshow for the real issue that is currently being decided in court. The plaintiffs are an Oaks coalition led by the California Oak Foundation, the City of Berkeley, the Panoramic Hill Association, and the Save Tightwad Hill group. The defendant, naturally, is UC Berkeley. The tree-sitters would have you believe that they are fighting for a good cause, and perhaps they are, but they are distracting from the real issues that are being decided in the lawsuit.
The tree-sitters have taken up spots in the trees and have put forth various reasons as to why the trees should be saved, including the contentions that the site of the oak grove is an Indian burial ground and that the trees are old-growth oaks that pre-date the stadium.
1. I have no knowledge of there being an ancient Indian burial ground near Memorial Stadium. One side says there is, one side says that is BS.
2. There are perhaps 3 oak trees that pre-date the stadium. The rest were planted by the University. There are 38 oaks in total in the grove.
The main issue is that the city of Berkeley thinks the University's Environmental Impact Report was not prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The other issue at trial has been whether the new athletic center constitutes a seismic retrofit or upgrade to Memorial Stadium, or is merely a separate and adjacent structure. The former would limit the amount of further funds UC would be permitted under seismic safety law to expend on the Memorial Stadium upgrade- the latter would not. The judge has been presented with over 45,000 pages of documents.
A ruling is expected later this week.