sycasey said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

While I would agree that enrollment should not be capped. And for purely selfish reasons, I feel that it is unfair because my son also received the email so he feels like he is not going to get in now.

But if one reads the article fully, the Save Berkeley's Neighborhood's folks have a good point about the enrollment cap. All UC would have to do is cut enrollment of out of state and international students to meet the enrollment cap:

"UC's own data show that UC can easily accommodate the court-ordered enrollment cap without harming in-state student prospects by limiting offers to out-of-state, international, and certificate program students," Save Berkeley's Neighborhoods said in a press release. "In 2021, UCB enrolled 3,429 additional students for whom UC has no obligation to serve under the California Master Plan for Higher Education."

If the short-term solution would be to cut enrollment of out-of-state and international students in order to accommodate California student applicants who have the grades to get in - then it should do that! As the SBN people say, there is no obligation from the UC to serve those applicant types and they are not in the Master Plan. In tough times and in good, UC should be first and foremost, for California students.

---

They don't have a good point, because that would not be a solution. Berkeley admits more international and out-of-state students because they pay more in tuition, which in turn helps subsidize the whole UC system. Get rid of those and you can't pay to educate the local students either.

The Save Berkeley's Neighborhoods people fully know this and are being disingenuous. They don't care about California students. They care about stopping UC expansion and development, full stop.

---

I said it was a short-term solution. And when is any argument like this genuine. Pure self interest on both sides. UC wants out of state and foreign students for the income. SBN wants the UC to stop growing. So who is really being genuine if its purely a money and property rights game? It is an excellent point for any parent in California who's son or daughter would be losing out on a possible admission (assuming they meet academic criteria), simply for the money. And this subsidy argument is ridiculous. Rich kids subsidize poor kids. Out-of-state students subsidize in-state ones. Humanities majors subsidize science majors. Freshmen and sophomores subsidize juniors and seniors. Undergraduates subsidize graduate students. And international students subsidize everyone. Yeah - everybody subsidizes everyone else. Its not just the international out of state kids that do this.

Their argument is sound and would speak to any parent, UC alum or otherwise, that wants their kid to go to Cal. Full stop.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Is anyone concerned about the increasing enrollment in the past 25 years? It doesn't seem like the goal is to educate Californians. It seems as if the goal is to get more paying out of state students to offset the lack of state and federal support. Can Berkeley expand the student body this rapidly without sacrificing quality of education and student body?

---

The math on tuition $$ actually works the opposite way - because an out-of-state student funds the subsidy on 2-3 in-state students, the question should be can the top UC schools maintain the same quality of education without that extra tuition money.

Schools like Michigan and Virginia actually go 30-40% out-of-state and are far less broke that Cal. Oregon and Colorado are up there too, but no one would mistake their student body for that of a top school.

The interesting thing from a donor and athletics perspective is that UC admits probably 2x as many international students as out of state US based students - curious how that affects donor rates.

In all this discussion, people also seem to miss the fact education is not just something that is a reward for doing well in high school, but something that creates more productive citizens in the future that will drive the economy, increase knowledge, and help society... And pay more taxes (which justifies spending more on education not the bare minimum). So getting top out of state students into California is a way to really help increase future tax rolls and not stagnate. But that only works is they stay in state.

---

Governor Pat Brown (Jerry's father) had the philosophy of supporting public universities since that would increase the tax base overtime by ((1) increasing earning power of Ca residents (2) foster economic development via new businesses and technology and (3) bring in new prospective residents from outside of California

His philosophy worked wonderfully
Unfortunately the CA taxpayers decided that they did not want to pay for the engine that had been driving the CA economy-CA higher public education. They thought they could get something for nothing.
Public funding fell from approximately 90% in the 1950s and 1960s to 12% today.
Higher education has survived by cutting overhead and salaries across the board, increasing tuition, bringing more out of state students who are charged more and increasing fund raising

---

Cal has certainly not cut overhead. And I don't believe for a minute that salaries have been cut for anyone on the staff.

There has been a lot of privately financed for-student housing built in Berkeley over the last 20 years or so. Up and down both Shattuck and University. Cal has always had the CO-Ops too. All that should be considered when considering growth in enrollment and when comparing to UCLA, UCSD or any other UC.

A "short-term solution" would be for the new high rise hotel built Downtown next to campus to be dedicated to student housing. Of course, the COB would lose out on hotel occupancy tax, but it would address "the housing issue." There may be other hotels in the area, suffering during the pandemic, that could be converted to student housing.

The university should expand the graduate student housing outside city limits.

The bigger picture is that the issues in Berkeley, especially with regard to high rents and homelessness, have very little to do with increases in enrollment. Most of Berkeley has gentrified. Home values are through the roof. A Victorian off of San Pablo or near 4th Street in West Berkeley is now prime real estate. Timescal is trendy. When I was a student in the early 80's, someone a year ahead of me got their first job and bought a bungalow with redwood beams a few hundred feet from College in Rockridge, a few blocks from BART for $100,000. Someone else bought a Victorian in Noe Valley for a similar amount because "it was all they could afford". My wife, just out of Cal in the mid-80s rented a 2 bedroom flat in the Marina, with a deck and view of the Bay and the Golden Gate Bridge for $500 (then split with a roommate). San Francisco and Oakland have had the same issues with gentrification and homelessness as Berkeley, they just don't have the university and students to blame it on.

Civil Bear said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

If we care about UC, we need to address the out-of-state baloney! It should be prohibited. We didn't create a world-class PUBLIC education system to farm it out to the highest bidders. UC is for California kids, plain and simple. Too bad we've allowed tax-cut mania to usurp UC's main goal - to provide excellent, affordable public education for its kids. Without UC and the CA State Universities, BOTH of my parents wouldn't have been able to come from VERY modest means and become successful professionals in health care.

UC should have its state funding restored so it can return to its roots and fulfill its original mandate.

---

LOL re tax-cut mania. California has the highest state income tax AND the highest state sales tax in the Country.

State Income Tax Rankings

State Sales Tax Rankings

---

2017 corporate tax cut. Enough said.

You don't understand when "tax cuts" occur, they're regressive. Cuts for the top (passed by voters), increases for the majority. That means you and I get to pick up the tab. Which is what your links prove.

Some people will never get it.

Gabriel Zucman describes the phenomenon pretty clearly in his book, "The Triumph of Injustice: How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay."

Lets get back to the topic and away from discussing marginal tax rates).

Has anyone read the actual decision? (I haven't and not sure the time). But if the court's reasoning is that the change in policy (in this case an expansion in enrollment) has unexamined environmental impacts (thus the CEQA issue) this feels like it will have profound impacts far beyond UC. I can think immediately of how one could use that logic to challenge a host of criminal justice changes - as that would have the impact of creating increased (or even decreased) demand for prison space and thus an economic impact on the host communities. Or increases in water supply/reliability creating inducements for growth? Add demands for new state services that lead to job growth in Sacramento? CEQA challenge. A huge number of policy choices have growth implications and it seems incredible we would see every single one potentially opening the door to requiring a CEQA analysis.

There's an update:

California Supreme Court ruling upholds enrollment freeze at UC Berkeley

JadenceBear said:

---

There's an update:

California Supreme Court ruling upholds enrollment freeze at UC Berkeley

---

The Board of Directors of the Panoramic Hill HOA (pictured below) are pleased. Copious amounts of DP and River Beluga Gold Caviar will flow like bottled water and Cheetos at the celebration party.

As so often happens in court, the evil creeps won.

BearSD said:

---

As so often happens in court, the evil creeps won.

---

Even worse. The evil creeps haven't won but have likely ensured that the innocent kids will lose.

Quote:

---

First, our denial of review does not foreclose any subsequent attempt by UC Berkeley to petition the Court of Appeal for temporary relief pending this appeal. We have never held that a denial of a petition for writ of supersedeas forecloses subsequent petitions.

***

Second, the Court of Appeal may exercise its power to order parties to enter prompt settlement negotiations. ... It remains an open question to what extent UC Berkeley must mitigate the environmental effects of its enrollment growth or whether the trial court's ruling will be upheld on appeal. SBN may well be in a better position now to negotiate mitigation commitments from the university than at the end of a costly and uncertain litigation process.

Finally, if the ultimate result of the present suit is to deprive thousands of prospective students of the opportunity to attend one of our premier public universities, I would not be surprised if this stark consequence prompts political actors to rethink the balance that CEQA currently strikes between the interests of parties like SBN and UC Berkeley.

---

NVBear78 said:

---

calpoly said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

I just received the same email. My daughter will be entering her Senior year at Cal in the Fall. This is crazy.

I really feel for applicants and incoming Freshmen. Now Cal will be even more of an impossible place to attend. And higher tuition to boot! (We got hit with notice from the kid's sorority - due to lower house occupancy numbers due to Covid, we got a surprise $2,000 bill for our daughter NOT living in the house this semester while studying abroad! Ouch.) Now a tuition increase. The good news just keeps on coming!

Ironically, I have a connection to Phil Bokovoy from my campus days.

Two issues: Isn't COB seriously pro-housing? But their NIMBY stance is directly in conflict with this position. More students is more density and more density is EXACTLY what COB should be embracing. The entire region needs to increase density to deal with both the homeless issue as well as projected increase in population. Two more million people expected in the upcoming decades. Or was it more? One KQED guest said 8 million, but that must have been in error.

The second issue also concerns housing. How will these Berkeley rental unit owners feel to know their units won't fetch as much rent with incoming Freshmen numbers cut by a third! Oops, might want to rethink!

And without The University of California at Berkeley, the COB would be a complete pile of trash. You think they'd be supporting a lucrative real estate market on Northside without all the highly-educated and trained professionals working in and around LBL, the University and associated industry? Nope.

Berkeley wants its cake and to eat it too. All the benefits of UC, but can obstruct the very economic engine feeding them. It was one thing with the stadium and the idiot Hill People (living in a total death trap, completely irrelevant of the stadium's location), but this is a direct attack. And again, counter to demographic pressures across the Bay Area and state. Head in the sand.

---

Let me try to answer your questions: 1) Why is it the COB job to house students. If you read the article the university has the lowest undergrad and grad student housing of ALL UC campuses. Sounds like the university has failed the students not the COB.

2) There is a housing crisis in Berkeley. Many staff and faculty members would love to live in Berkeley but cannot because there is not enough housing. This is another failure by the university not the COB.

I really have a hard time understanding all the outrage against the COB and not the university. The university had enrollment caps and they went over them. Students that get rejected this year can always go to other UC campuses, it is not the end of the world.

---

Because the NIMBY's and the COB make it impossible (and impossibly expensive) to build additional housing for students. It's very simple and doesn't mean the Administration doesn't have its own faults.

---

bingo
Happens in Santa Cruz as well. For example, $50,000 for a back yard retaining wall etc. The liberal communities say they want housing but they never change the environmental laws so it is possible. I can say this as a liberal and environmentalist the environmental impact laws make no sense because they never take into consideration the impact of NOT developing. Case in point: Homelessness, which causes biohazards, fires, water contamination and a long list of other costs.
The real reason for those laws is so that elected officials have something to use to protect their constituents from absorbing development near them. It is what drives county politics in Santa Cruz. Every homeowner in Santa Cruz hates the county and does things in the sly, knowing that the fines are cheaper than the permits.
Add to that the fact the state of California is the only state in the union that gives landlord's less rights over their property than their tenants and it's no wonder there's a housing problem in many college towns in California.

TandemBear said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Is anyone concerned about the increasing enrollment in the past 25 years? It doesn't seem like the goal is to educate Californians. It seems as if the goal is to get more paying out of state students to offset the lack of state and federal support. Can Berkeley expand the student body this rapidly without sacrificing quality of education and student body?

---

The math on tuition $$ actually works the opposite way - because an out-of-state student funds the subsidy on 2-3 in-state students, the question should be can the top UC schools maintain the same quality of education without that extra tuition money.

---

If we care about UC, we need to address the out-of-state baloney! It should be prohibited. We didn't create a world-class PUBLIC education system to farm it out to the highest bidders. UC is for California kids, plain and simple. Too bad we've allowed tax-cut mania to usurp UC's main goal - to provide excellent, affordable public education for its kids. Without UC and the CA State Universities, BOTH of my parents wouldn't have been able to come from VERY modest means and become successful professionals in health care.

UC should have its state funding restored so it can return to its roots and fulfill its original mandate.

---

The Reagan revolution has cost the public sector a long slow death, bleeding it to death slowly so the perp will be long forgotten and hence not held to account. No organization public or private will survive austerity measures. Tax cuts sound nice in the short term but they starve us in the long term.

NVBear78 said:

---

calpoly said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

I just received the same email. My daughter will be entering her Senior year at Cal in the Fall. This is crazy.

I really feel for applicants and incoming Freshmen. Now Cal will be even more of an impossible place to attend. And higher tuition to boot! (We got hit with notice from the kid's sorority - due to lower house occupancy numbers due to Covid, we got a surprise $2,000 bill for our daughter NOT living in the house this semester while studying abroad! Ouch.) Now a tuition increase. The good news just keeps on coming!

Ironically, I have a connection to Phil Bokovoy from my campus days.

Two issues: Isn't COB seriously pro-housing? But their NIMBY stance is directly in conflict with this position. More students is more density and more density is EXACTLY what COB should be embracing. The entire region needs to increase density to deal with both the homeless issue as well as projected increase in population. Two more million people expected in the upcoming decades. Or was it more? One KQED guest said 8 million, but that must have been in error.

The second issue also concerns housing. How will these Berkeley rental unit owners feel to know their units won't fetch as much rent with incoming Freshmen numbers cut by a third! Oops, might want to rethink!

And without The University of California at Berkeley, the COB would be a complete pile of trash. You think they'd be supporting a lucrative real estate market on Northside without all the highly-educated and trained professionals working in and around LBL, the University and associated industry? Nope.

Berkeley wants its cake and to eat it too. All the benefits of UC, but can obstruct the very economic engine feeding them. It was one thing with the stadium and the idiot Hill People (living in a total death trap, completely irrelevant of the stadium's location), but this is a direct attack. And again, counter to demographic pressures across the Bay Area and state. Head in the sand.

---

Let me try to answer your questions: 1) Why is it the COB job to house students. If you read the article the university has the lowest undergrad and grad student housing of ALL UC campuses. Sounds like the university has failed the students not the COB.

2) There is a housing crisis in Berkeley. Many staff and faculty members would love to live in Berkeley but cannot because there is not enough housing. This is another failure by the university not the COB.

I really have a hard time understanding all the outrage against the COB and not the university. The university had enrollment caps and they went over them. Students that get rejected this year can always go to other UC campuses, it is not the end of the world.

---

Because the NIMBY's and the COB make it impossible (and impossibly expensive) to build additional housing for students. It's very simple and doesn't mean the Administration doesn't have its own faults.

---

Covid and the consequent limitations in the supply chain (ie steel from China) has made the situation even worse. Add to that the impact of fires on the demand for building contractors and it has just become impossible to build.

Does anyone see a pattern here?

We become the #2 US public university per US news

We lose this battle and reduce enrollment

We lost the CRISPR case

Basketball and Football are in shambles.

It sure doesn't seem like the university gives a darn about anything...there is nothing going well institutionally and the only sporadic good news is individual achievements (e.g. Nobel prizes).

We pat ourselves on the back that Berkeley is sink or swim but that attitude is partially responsible for all the above nonsense.

bluehenbear said:

---

https://www.berkeleyside.org/2022/02/14/uc-berkeley-enrollment-drop-court-of-appeal-ruling

Quote:

---

The order to cap enrollment at the 2020-21 level of 42,347 as opposed to the current enrollment of 45,057 is the result of a lawsuit filed in June 2019 by a neighborhood group, Save Berkeley's Neighborhoods, against UC Berkeley, the Regents of the University of California and others. The city of Berkeley had been party to the lawsuit until it withdrew after signing an $82.6 million letter of agreement in July with the university

---

---

I get a kick over all this enrollment stuff. When I went to Cal in the mid-sixties, total enrollment was well below 30k. I thought is was overcrowded then. I remember that the state plan was for no UC campus to exceed an enrollment of 27.5k.
Obviously we're blown through that; even UC Davis now has greater than 35k.
I'm not a fan of the CoB, but I do see its point. Is there any limit to Cal enrollment? 50k. 55k, 60k? At some point it has to affect the quality of instruction and the quality of student life.

PaulCali said:

---

bluehenbear said:

---

https://www.berkeleyside.org/2022/02/14/uc-berkeley-enrollment-drop-court-of-appeal-ruling

Quote:

---

The order to cap enrollment at the 2020-21 level of 42,347 as opposed to the current enrollment of 45,057 is the result of a lawsuit filed in June 2019 by a neighborhood group, Save Berkeley's Neighborhoods, against UC Berkeley, the Regents of the University of California and others. The city of Berkeley had been party to the lawsuit until it withdrew after signing an $82.6 million letter of agreement in July with the university

---

---

I get a kick over all this enrollment stuff. When I went to Cal in the mid-sixties, total enrollment was well below 30k. I thought is was overcrowded then. I remember that the state plan was for no UC campus to exceed an enrollment of 27.5k.
Obviously we're blown through that; even UC Davis now has greater than 35k.
I'm not a fan of the CoB, but I do see its point. Is there any limit to Cal enrollment? 50k. 55k, 60k? At some point it has to affect the quality of instruction and the quality of student life.

---

*banging my head against the wall*

The City of Berkeley opposed this enrollment cap.

GMP said:

---

PaulCali said:

---

bluehenbear said:

---

https://www.berkeleyside.org/2022/02/14/uc-berkeley-enrollment-drop-court-of-appeal-ruling

Quote:

---

The order to cap enrollment at the 2020-21 level of 42,347 as opposed to the current enrollment of 45,057 is the result of a lawsuit filed in June 2019 by a neighborhood group, Save Berkeley's Neighborhoods, against UC Berkeley, the Regents of the University of California and others. The city of Berkeley had been party to the lawsuit until it withdrew after signing an $82.6 million letter of agreement in July with the university

---

---

I get a kick over all this enrollment stuff. When I went to Cal in the mid-sixties, total enrollment was well below 30k. I thought is was overcrowded then. I remember that the state plan was for no UC campus to exceed an enrollment of 27.5k.
Obviously we're blown through that; even UC Davis now has greater than 35k.
I'm not a fan of the CoB, but I do see its point. Is there any limit to Cal enrollment? 50k. 55k, 60k? At some point it has to affect the quality of instruction and the quality of student life.

---

*banging my head against the wall*

The City of Berkeley opposed this enrollment cap.

---

Yeah, bad on me. There was that monetary settlement. But my question still remains, I wonder what, if any, is the limit on enrollment. Perhaps that was also part of the settlement.

PaulCali said:

---

GMP said:

---

PaulCali said:

---

bluehenbear said:

---

https://www.berkeleyside.org/2022/02/14/uc-berkeley-enrollment-drop-court-of-appeal-ruling

Quote:

---

The order to cap enrollment at the 2020-21 level of 42,347 as opposed to the current enrollment of 45,057 is the result of a lawsuit filed in June 2019 by a neighborhood group, Save Berkeley's Neighborhoods, against UC Berkeley, the Regents of the University of California and others. The city of Berkeley had been party to the lawsuit until it withdrew after signing an $82.6 million letter of agreement in July with the university

---

---

I get a kick over all this enrollment stuff. When I went to Cal in the mid-sixties, total enrollment was well below 30k. I thought is was overcrowded then. I remember that the state plan was for no UC campus to exceed an enrollment of 27.5k.
Obviously we're blown through that; even UC Davis now has greater than 35k.
I'm not a fan of the CoB, but I do see its point. Is there any limit to Cal enrollment? 50k. 55k, 60k? At some point it has to affect the quality of instruction and the quality of student life.

---

*banging my head against the wall*

The City of Berkeley opposed this enrollment cap.

---

Yeah, bad on me. There was that monetary settlement. But my question still remains, I wonder what, if any, is the limit on enrollment. Perhaps that was also part of the settlement.

---

Pure shakedown.

Quote:

---

The City of Berkeley, once a party adverse to the university in this very suit, now avers that the injunction will negatively affect the broader Berkeley community and local economy through decreased taxes, depressed patronage of local businesses, and a reduction of the labor pool within the community.

***

It bears emphasizing that the City of Berkeley, an original party to this litigation, has already entered into a settlement agreement with the university that, among other terms, provides the City with increased funding for City services without any enrollment cap in return.

---

That's what these traditionalists don't understand. The CoB had a foolproof argument. Cap enrollment because of NIMBYism. University objects. CoB says - ok, cap enrollment of foreign and out of state students so that you can admit more California students. University loses in court. University now says it will admit more Cali students.

Apart from the enrollment cap - how can this be a bad thing for California students looking to get into Berkeley?

philly1121 said:

---

That's what these traditionalists don't understand. The CoB had a foolproof argument. Cap enrollment because of NIMBYism. University objects. CoB says - ok, cap enrollment of foreign and out of state students so that you can admit more California students. University loses in court. University now says it will admit more Cali students.

Apart from the enrollment cap - how can this be a bad thing for California students looking to get into Berkeley?

---

1. Cal will have to raise tuition to make up for the revenue lost by admitting fewer out of state students who pay higher tuition than in state students.
2. In state students lose benefits of having fellow students who have different backgrounds and view points from in-state students.
I had three good friends who were out of state students.
A. One was a half-Indian (Native American) (indigenous)(first peoples) and half-African American born and raised in British Columbia he had some very different perspectives on life in the USA.
B. Another was a student from Bombay/Mumbai. He was a brilliant EE and a crazy Cal FB fan Rally Commer.
C. Another was this really cute coed from New Jersey whom I married and now lives in California with me.

DiabloWags said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

If we care about UC, we need to address the out-of-state baloney! It should be prohibited. We didn't create a world-class PUBLIC education system to farm it out to the highest bidders. UC is for California kids, plain and simple. Too bad we've allowed tax-cut mania to usurp UC's main goal - to provide excellent, affordable public education for its kids. Without UC and the CA State Universities, BOTH of my parents wouldn't have been able to come from VERY modest means and become successful professionals in health care.

UC should have its state funding restored so it can return to its roots and fulfill its original mandate.

---

LOL re tax-cut mania. California has the highest state income tax AND the highest state sales tax in the Country.

State Income Tax Rankings

State Sales Tax Rankings

---

You are correct Civil Bear!

Our income tax rates here are so progressive, that anyone making over $59,000 is already at a 9.3% marginal income tax rate, which is over double of Arizona's top rate.

And for those that claim that the "rich" in the Golden State dont pay their "fair" share, the fact that the State enjoyed a RECORD $75 Billion Dollar Budget Surplus during a pandemic, would offer strong evidence that tax rates are way too high to begin with.

Per 2016 data, the Top 1% in California pay 46% of all income taxes.
Per 2018 data, the Top 5% in the United States pay 60.3% of all income taxes.

---

Maybe we should run a go-fund-me for the top 1%

The top 1% earners earn MORE than the entire middle 60% of earners in the USA

FYI the top 1% got the lions share of trump' tax breaks after 2016.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

If we care about UC, we need to address the out-of-state baloney! It should be prohibited. We didn't create a world-class PUBLIC education system to farm it out to the highest bidders. UC is for California kids, plain and simple. Too bad we've allowed tax-cut mania to usurp UC's main goal - to provide excellent, affordable public education for its kids. Without UC and the CA State Universities, BOTH of my parents wouldn't have been able to come from VERY modest means and become successful professionals in health care.

UC should have its state funding restored so it can return to its roots and fulfill its original mandate.

---

LOL re tax-cut mania. California has the highest state income tax AND the highest state sales tax in the Country.

State Income Tax Rankings

State Sales Tax Rankings

---

You are correct Civil Bear!

Our income tax rates here are so progressive, that anyone making over $59,000 is already at a 9.3% marginal income tax rate, which is over double of Arizona's top rate.

And for those that claim that the "rich" in the Golden State dont pay their "fair" share, the fact that the State enjoyed a RECORD $75 Billion Dollar Budget Surplus during a pandemic, would offer strong evidence that tax rates are way too high to begin with.

Per 2016 data, the Top 1% in California pay 46% of all income taxes.
Per 2018 data, the Top 5% in the United States pay 60.3% of all income taxes.

---

FYI the top 1% got the lions share of trump' tax breaks after 2016.

---

Since this seems to be an exercise in political futility on a football forum, fwiw, a good portion of the top salary earners in CA saw their taxes go up from the Trump legislation thanks to the elimination of most to the SALT deductions. So you might want to do fund me thing outside the State

heartofthebear said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

calpoly said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

I just received the same email. My daughter will be entering her Senior year at Cal in the Fall. This is crazy.

I really feel for applicants and incoming Freshmen. Now Cal will be even more of an impossible place to attend. And higher tuition to boot! (We got hit with notice from the kid's sorority - due to lower house occupancy numbers due to Covid, we got a surprise $2,000 bill for our daughter NOT living in the house this semester while studying abroad! Ouch.) Now a tuition increase. The good news just keeps on coming!

Ironically, I have a connection to Phil Bokovoy from my campus days.

Two issues: Isn't COB seriously pro-housing? But their NIMBY stance is directly in conflict with this position. More students is more density and more density is EXACTLY what COB should be embracing. The entire region needs to increase density to deal with both the homeless issue as well as projected increase in population. Two more million people expected in the upcoming decades. Or was it more? One KQED guest said 8 million, but that must have been in error.

The second issue also concerns housing. How will these Berkeley rental unit owners feel to know their units won't fetch as much rent with incoming Freshmen numbers cut by a third! Oops, might want to rethink!

And without The University of California at Berkeley, the COB would be a complete pile of trash. You think they'd be supporting a lucrative real estate market on Northside without all the highly-educated and trained professionals working in and around LBL, the University and associated industry? Nope.

Berkeley wants its cake and to eat it too. All the benefits of UC, but can obstruct the very economic engine feeding them. It was one thing with the stadium and the idiot Hill People (living in a total death trap, completely irrelevant of the stadium's location), but this is a direct attack. And again, counter to demographic pressures across the Bay Area and state. Head in the sand.

---

Let me try to answer your questions: 1) Why is it the COB job to house students. If you read the article the university has the lowest undergrad and grad student housing of ALL UC campuses. Sounds like the university has failed the students not the COB.

2) There is a housing crisis in Berkeley. Many staff and faculty members would love to live in Berkeley but cannot because there is not enough housing. This is another failure by the university not the COB.

I really have a hard time understanding all the outrage against the COB and not the university. The university had enrollment caps and they went over them. Students that get rejected this year can always go to other UC campuses, it is not the end of the world.

---

Because the NIMBY's and the COB make it impossible (and impossibly expensive) to build additional housing for students. It's very simple and doesn't mean the Administration doesn't have its own faults.

---

bingo
Happens in Santa Cruz as well. For example, $50,000 for a back yard retaining wall etc. The liberal communities say they want housing but they never change the environmental laws so it is possible. I can say this as a liberal and environmentalist the environmental impact laws make no sense because they never take into consideration the impact of NOT developing. Case in point: Homelessness, which causes biohazards, fires, water contamination and a long list of other costs.
The real reason for those laws is so that elected officials have something to use to protect their constituents from absorbing development near them. It is what drives county politics in Santa Cruz. Every homeowner in Santa Cruz hates the county and does things in the sly, knowing that the fines are cheaper than the permits.
Add to that the fact the state of California is the only state in the union that gives landlord's less rights over their property than their tenants and it's no wonder there's a housing problem in many college towns in California.

---

Lived in Santa Cruz County from 98-04....Found it to be a progressive Utopia that ran to the end of its purpose and wound up with a result never, ever anticipated....Slow growth raising RE prices through the roof....No roadways in and out leading to 45 minute plus adventures getting to work, school, or anywhere. Medical care considered rural so that MDs transferred out as soon as they realized the fee schedules.

Will say it is one of the most beautiful places on earth, BUT you have to tolerate a lot to enjoy same.

To get this back on topic, or try to, I'll repeat here what I posted this morning on the Insider Board.



As an update, Phil and his merry band of NIMBYs have now generously offered to "let" Cal admit 1,000 more students so long as they agree to drop their efforts to get the legislature to fix this CEQA debacle.

ROFL. The gall of these people. If you want to know the problem with this CEQA application this is it. Some unelected group of NIMBYs positively oozing with self entitlement think they can set enrollment policy for the largest state in the Union because of this idiot court decision and some law designed to prevent water pollution.

Well Save Berkeley Neighborhood's now sees the writing on the wall and that they are about to lose it all when this law gets changed. So now they want to bargain to allow enrollment increases (on a temporary basis of course) as long as we give up on our efforts to actually win.

Classic Berkeley homeowners. This is like the Hill People "letting us" renovate Memorial after they'd lost all their power because we got the legislature to exempt Memorial from the law they were using to block us.

Luckily it looks like this time Cal isn't giving these people an inch. Thank God.

I really, really hope we put a 30 story student dorm right next to Phil's house once we get an exemption from CEQA. I'd happily contribute to that particular building project.

[url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/1-000-more-students-could-attend-UC-Berkeley-next-16980362.php?sid=5452c9393b35d010308d4d8d&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headlines&utm_campaign=sfc_morningfix][/url]https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/1-000-more-students-could-attend-UC-Berkeley-next-16980362.php?sid=5452c9393b35d010308d4d8d&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headlines&utm_campaign=sfc_morningfix

Sebastabear said:

---

I really, really hope we put a 30 story student dorm right next to Phil's house once we get an exemption from CEQA. I'd happily contribute to that particular building project.

---

I would also contribute to that project. Hope the legislature acts soon.

BearSD said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

I really, really hope we put a 30 story student dorm right next to Phil's house once we get an exemption from CEQA. I'd happily contribute to that particular building project.

---

I would also contribute to that project. Hope the legislature acts soon.

---

He'd just move to his other house in New Zealand, where he already lives half the time.

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

I really, really hope we put a 30 story student dorm right next to Phil's house once we get an exemption from CEQA. I'd happily contribute to that particular building project.

---

I would also contribute to that project. Hope the legislature acts soon.

---

He'd just move to his other house in New Zealand, where he already lives half the time.

---

And that would be a good thing.

PaulCali said:

---

bluehenbear said:

---

https://www.berkeleyside.org/2022/02/14/uc-berkeley-enrollment-drop-court-of-appeal-ruling

Quote:

---

The order to cap enrollment at the 2020-21 level of 42,347 as opposed to the current enrollment of 45,057 is the result of a lawsuit filed in June 2019 by a neighborhood group, Save Berkeley's Neighborhoods, against UC Berkeley, the Regents of the University of California and others. The city of Berkeley had been party to the lawsuit until it withdrew after signing an $82.6 million letter of agreement in July with the university

---

---

I get a kick over all this enrollment stuff. When I went to Cal in the mid-sixties, total enrollment was well below 30k. I thought is was overcrowded then. I remember that the state plan was for no UC campus to exceed an enrollment of 27.5k.
Obviously we're blown through that; even UC Davis now has greater than 35k.
I'm not a fan of the CoB, but I do see its point. Is there any limit to Cal enrollment? 50k. 55k, 60k? At some point it has to affect the quality of instruction and the quality of student life.

---

California Population
1965: $18.5 million
2022: $39 million

calumnus said:

---

PaulCali said:

---

bluehenbear said:

---

https://www.berkeleyside.org/2022/02/14/uc-berkeley-enrollment-drop-court-of-appeal-ruling

Quote:

---

The order to cap enrollment at the 2020-21 level of 42,347 as opposed to the current enrollment of 45,057 is the result of a lawsuit filed in June 2019 by a neighborhood group, Save Berkeley's Neighborhoods, against UC Berkeley, the Regents of the University of California and others. The city of Berkeley had been party to the lawsuit until it withdrew after signing an $82.6 million letter of agreement in July with the university

---

---

I get a kick over all this enrollment stuff. When I went to Cal in the mid-sixties, total enrollment was well below 30k. I thought is was overcrowded then. I remember that the state plan was for no UC campus to exceed an enrollment of 27.5k.
Obviously we're blown through that; even UC Davis now has greater than 35k.
I'm not a fan of the CoB, but I do see its point. Is there any limit to Cal enrollment? 50k. 55k, 60k? At some point it has to affect the quality of instruction and the quality of student life.

---

California Population
1965: $18.5 million
2022: $39 million

---

7 UC schools have opened since 1958 (only one recently) and Cal's enrollment has increased from 25,000 to 45,000 in your time period. Can we build more universities?

GivemTheAxe said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

That's what these traditionalists don't understand. The CoB had a foolproof argument. Cap enrollment because of NIMBYism. University objects. CoB says - ok, cap enrollment of foreign and out of state students so that you can admit more California students. University loses in court. University now says it will admit more Cali students.

Apart from the enrollment cap - how can this be a bad thing for California students looking to get into Berkeley?

---

1. Cal will have to raise tuition to make up for the revenue lost by admitting fewer out of state students who pay higher tuition than in state students.
2. In state students lose benefits of having fellow students who have different backgrounds and view points from in-state students.
I had three good friends who were out of state students.
A. One was a half-Indian (Native American) (indigenous)(first peoples) and half-African American born and raised in British Columbia he had some very different perspectives on life in the USA.
B. Another was a student from Bombay/Mumbai. He was a brilliant EE and a crazy Cal FB fan Rally Commer.
C. Another was this really cute coed from New Jersey whom I married and now lives in California with me.

---

Ok. So they're raising tuition 2.4% for incoming 2022 freshman class. It amounts to - what - about $5-600? Ok, you got me on that one. Quite frankly - if my son got in (which I still don't think he will) - I would gladly pay it.

Your #2 is pretty laughable - a diversity argument? So - basically they will lose the benefit of someone from, say, New York? Or England? Eh, not buying it. To suggest that a Cali student would lose out on a complete or partial university experience simply because he's going to miss someone's perspective from Alabama or Wisconsin seems quite the stretch. The benefit of UC experience, particularly at Cal, is that one can immerse themselves in a wide variety of clubs, student social and academic groups - IF THEY CHOOSE.

And congrats on finding your bride at Cal. I also met my future wife at Cal. She was from a small agricultural, majority immigrant town in the Central Valley that I had never heard of, located in a part of California that I never thought I would see or live in. And when I went to meet her family for the first time, it was a gigantic culture shock that made me rethink alot of my own biases and perspectives. I've learned and feel I'm better for it. And now I live in Fresno. See - diverse perspectives come from Cali too.

philly1121 said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

That's what these traditionalists don't understand. The CoB had a foolproof argument. Cap enrollment because of NIMBYism. University objects. CoB says - ok, cap enrollment of foreign and out of state students so that you can admit more California students. University loses in court. University now says it will admit more Cali students.

Apart from the enrollment cap - how can this be a bad thing for California students looking to get into Berkeley?

---

1. Cal will have to raise tuition to make up for the revenue lost by admitting fewer out of state students who pay higher tuition than in state students.
2. In state students lose benefits of having fellow students who have different backgrounds and view points from in-state students.
I had three good friends who were out of state students.
A. One was a half-Indian (Native American) (indigenous)(first peoples) and half-African American born and raised in British Columbia he had some very different perspectives on life in the USA.
B. Another was a student from Bombay/Mumbai. He was a brilliant EE and a crazy Cal FB fan Rally Commer.
C. Another was this really cute coed from New Jersey whom I married and now lives in California with me.

---

Ok. So they're raising tuition 2.4% for incoming 2022 freshman class. It amounts to - what - about $5-600? Ok, you got me on that one. Quite frankly - if my son got in (which I still don't think he will) - I would gladly pay it.

Your #2 is pretty laughable - a diversity argument? So - basically they will lose the benefit of someone from, say, New York? Or England? Eh, not buying it. To suggest that a Cali student would lose out on a complete or partial university experience simply because he's going to miss someone's perspective from Alabama or Wisconsin seems quite the stretch. The benefit of UC experience, particularly at Cal, is that one can immerse themselves in a wide variety of clubs, student social and academic groups - IF THEY CHOOSE.

And congrats on finding your bride at Cal. I also met my future wife at Cal. She was from a small agricultural, majority immigrant town in the Central Valley that I had never heard of, located in a part of California that I never thought I would see or live in. And when I went to meet her family for the first time, it was a gigantic culture shock that made me rethink alot of my own biases and perspectives. I've learned and feel I'm better for it. And now I live in Fresno. See - diverse perspectives come from Cali too.

---

Thanks for your comments but if you think that the tuition hike will be only $500-$600 very long you will be very mistaken. That is just the starting point.
And while you may be willing to gladly pay that extra amount. Remember that Cal has a large number of Pell grant students who have difficulty paying even the current tuition.
My wife and I donate to several Cal alumni scholarships. If you listen to the reports by some of recipients of those scholarships their stories are heart breaking. While it might be easy for you to come up with an extra $500-$600 in tuition , it is quite a struggle for them. Especially when you consider the other non-tuition costs of attending Cal.

When was a student at Cal the state covered between 80-90% of the costs of Cal. This year that number will be 10%. The rest is made up by federal grants, fund raising extraordinary donation and TUITION.

The current tuition is already a barrier for qualified California students from low income families Higher tuition will make this worse and will worsen the large income disparity that already exists

I came to Cal when tuition was $50 per semester. The rest of the money I needed My family was a poor Latino family I made that up with part time and summer jobs The low tuition allowed me to grt

GivemTheAxe said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

That's what these traditionalists don't understand. The CoB had a foolproof argument. Cap enrollment because of NIMBYism. University objects. CoB says - ok, cap enrollment of foreign and out of state students so that you can admit more California students. University loses in court. University now says it will admit more Cali students.

Apart from the enrollment cap - how can this be a bad thing for California students looking to get into Berkeley?

---

1. Cal will have to raise tuition to make up for the revenue lost by admitting fewer out of state students who pay higher tuition than in state students.
2. In state students lose benefits of having fellow students who have different backgrounds and view points from in-state students.
I had three good friends who were out of state students.
A. One was a half-Indian (Native American) (indigenous)(first peoples) and half-African American born and raised in British Columbia he had some very different perspectives on life in the USA.
B. Another was a student from Bombay/Mumbai. He was a brilliant EE and a crazy Cal FB fan Rally Commer.
C. Another was this really cute coed from New Jersey whom I married and now lives in California with me.

---

Ok. So they're raising tuition 2.4% for incoming 2022 freshman class. It amounts to - what - about $5-600? Ok, you got me on that one. Quite frankly - if my son got in (which I still don't think he will) - I would gladly pay it.

Your #2 is pretty laughable - a diversity argument? So - basically they will lose the benefit of someone from, say, New York? Or England? Eh, not buying it. To suggest that a Cali student would lose out on a complete or partial university experience simply because he's going to miss someone's perspective from Alabama or Wisconsin seems quite the stretch. The benefit of UC experience, particularly at Cal, is that one can immerse themselves in a wide variety of clubs, student social and academic groups - IF THEY CHOOSE.

And congrats on finding your bride at Cal. I also met my future wife at Cal. She was from a small agricultural, majority immigrant town in the Central Valley that I had never heard of, located in a part of California that I never thought I would see or live in. And when I went to meet her family for the first time, it was a gigantic culture shock that made me rethink alot of my own biases and perspectives. I've learned and feel I'm better for it. And now I live in Fresno. See - diverse perspectives come from Cali too.

---

Thanks for your comments but if you think that the tuition hike will be only $500-$600 very long you will be very mistaken. That is just the starting point.
And while you may be willing to gladly pay that extra amount. Remember that Cal has a large number of Pell grant students who have difficulty paying even the current tuition.
My wife and I donate to several Cal alumni scholarships. If you listen to the reports by some of recipients of those scholarships their stories are heart breaking. While it might be easy for you to come up with an extra $500-$600 in tuition , it is quite a struggle for them. Especially when you consider the other non-tuition costs of attending Cal.

When was a student at Cal the state covered between 80-90% of the costs of Cal. This year that number will be 10%. The rest is made up by federal grants, fund raising extraordinary donation and TUITION.

The current tuition is already a barrier for qualified California students from low income families Higher tuition will make this worse and will worsen the large income disparity that already exists

I came to Cal when tuition was $50 per semester. The rest of the money I needed My family was a poor Latino family I made that up with part time and summer jobs The low tuition allowed me to grt

---

Not relevant. Low income students are not affected by any tuition increase as the Blue & Gold plan, which covers 100% of tuition for families <$80k), increases accordingly so such kids are made whole.

Have we discussed the likelihood that there will be increased pressure to no longer fund the athletic department's deficits?

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

PaulCali said:

---

bluehenbear said:

---

https://www.berkeleyside.org/2022/02/14/uc-berkeley-enrollment-drop-court-of-appeal-ruling

Quote:

---

The order to cap enrollment at the 2020-21 level of 42,347 as opposed to the current enrollment of 45,057 is the result of a lawsuit filed in June 2019 by a neighborhood group, Save Berkeley's Neighborhoods, against UC Berkeley, the Regents of the University of California and others. The city of Berkeley had been party to the lawsuit until it withdrew after signing an $82.6 million letter of agreement in July with the university

---

---

I get a kick over all this enrollment stuff. When I went to Cal in the mid-sixties, total enrollment was well below 30k. I thought is was overcrowded then. I remember that the state plan was for no UC campus to exceed an enrollment of 27.5k.
Obviously we're blown through that; even UC Davis now has greater than 35k.
I'm not a fan of the CoB, but I do see its point. Is there any limit to Cal enrollment? 50k. 55k, 60k? At some point it has to affect the quality of instruction and the quality of student life.

---

California Population
1965: $18.5 million
2022: $39 million

---

7 UC schools have opened since 1958 (only one recently) and Cal's enrollment has increased from 25,000 to 45,000 in your time period. Can we build more universities?

---

I love this line. Either you don't have kids yet or they have already passed through college years. What do you want for your spawn - UC Berkeley or UC Merced? I will let your answer be how you answer your query.

socaltownie said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

PaulCali said:

---

bluehenbear said:

---

https://www.berkeleyside.org/2022/02/14/uc-berkeley-enrollment-drop-court-of-appeal-ruling

Quote:

---

The order to cap enrollment at the 2020-21 level of 42,347 as opposed to the current enrollment of 45,057 is the result of a lawsuit filed in June 2019 by a neighborhood group, Save Berkeley's Neighborhoods, against UC Berkeley, the Regents of the University of California and others. The city of Berkeley had been party to the lawsuit until it withdrew after signing an $82.6 million letter of agreement in July with the university

---

---

I get a kick over all this enrollment stuff. When I went to Cal in the mid-sixties, total enrollment was well below 30k. I thought is was overcrowded then. I remember that the state plan was for no UC campus to exceed an enrollment of 27.5k.
Obviously we're blown through that; even UC Davis now has greater than 35k.
I'm not a fan of the CoB, but I do see its point. Is there any limit to Cal enrollment? 50k. 55k, 60k? At some point it has to affect the quality of instruction and the quality of student life.

---

California Population
1965: $18.5 million
2022: $39 million

---

7 UC schools have opened since 1958 (only one recently) and Cal's enrollment has increased from 25,000 to 45,000 in your time period. Can we build more universities?

---

I love this line. Either you don't have kids yet or they have already passed through college years. What do you want for your spawn - UC Berkeley or UC Merced? I will let your answer be how you answer your query.

---

I would prefer my kids, who are in grade school, to go to UC Berkeley over UC Merced.