Losing is what Cal does... We are our biggest enemy.

This was expected. Was pretty clear these nutty judges were going to make new law. Idea was to get this ruling quickly so we could get it to the Supreme Court or, if that doesn't work, the legislature to fix. Because this has to be fixed. The idea that students are essentially "pollution" under CEQA is bonkers and would create an entirely new way for NIMBY's to block everything across the entire state.

And as to the idea that student "noise" from (I guess) being alive would be worse than the "noise" of running an open air drug market where people are stabbed and assaulted on a regular basis is cuckoo for cocoa puffs. I suspect the legislature would love the opportunity to overturn this ruling..

Lol. I can't believe that anybody would expect any other outcome.

While I support the plan, People's Park is sacred ground. It's like the Western Wall in Jerusalem.

The Court of Appeal just issued an absurd & dangerous ruling that people are pollution & CEQA requires evaluation of the type of people who will live in proposed new housing.

We’ll shortly introduce legislation to put an end to this nonsense. Stay tuned. https://t.co/472falo0u1

— Senator Scott Wiener (@Scott_Wiener) February 25, 2023

okaydo said:

---

While I support the plan, People's Park is sacred ground. It's like the Western Wall in Jerusalem.

---

Not even remotely close to the same thing for some of us.

Some view. it as a desecration. I do.

operbear said:

---

Some view. it as a desecration. I do.

---

To the drugs and homelessness?

operbear said:

---

Some view. it as a desecration. I do.

---

Not sure whether you mean that People's Park or the intent to develop it is the "desecration." For me, it's the former.

I'm sorry that:

• the university tore down the homes before it was ready to develop the property,
• the students chose to occupy it (illegally),
• the university overreacted to what was likely to be a temporary occupation (as students wanted residence halls and recreation facilities), and
• one person was killed and another blinded.

It was a s**t storm, but it is the university's property and there are needs for student housing as well as athletic and recreational facilities.

Its been a "dump" since I lived in Ehrman Hall overlooking it in 1980. It does not serve the needs of the community ... unless you believe those "needs" are an open drug market where people are assaulted and stabbed on a regular basis.

The single party system in CA continues to let land use be dictated by kooks and courts causing endless delays for property owners. Hope Sebasta is right that the State Supreme Court is rational enough to overturn the lower court and/or that there are enough sensible people in the Legislature to change the rules.

NVBear78 said:

---

The single party system in CA continues to let land use be dictated by cooks and courts causing endless delays for property owners. Hope Sebasta is right that the State Supreme Court is rational enough to overturn the lower court and/or that there are enough sensible people in the Legislature to change the rules.

---

NIMBYSM in CA the great political unifier.

okaydo said:

---

Lol. I can't believe that anybody would expect any other outcome.

While I support the plan, People's Park is sacred ground. It's like the Western Wall in Jerusalem.

---

If the Western Wall was a cross between Haight Ashbury circa 1969 and the set of The Last of Us then yeah I agree. But it's not.

If these judges want to be legislators then I suggest they head down to the court house (they should know where that is) and file their papers to run for office. But they don't have the power to make up new laws which is exactly what they've done here.

And even if they did have the power, deciding students are pollution under CEQA is so stupid it bogggles the mind. Of course the real cherry on top are simultaneously making the observations that Cal should have "considered other sites" (which is a classic from the NIMBY playbook and, Hello? What other site exactly in one of the most densely populated cities in California, located a block from campus no less? ) and that Cal is bad because it "houses the the lowest percentage of its students of any UC". Do they realize these are diametrically opposite? I'm surprised their brains didn't start smoking like the computers from the original Star Trek show when they wrote this. "Everything I say is a lie. I am lying . . . "

Sebasta for governor! and Chancellor! and AD!

socaliganbear said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

The single party system in CA continues to let land use be dictated by cooks and courts causing endless delays for property owners. Hope Sebasta is right that the State Supreme Court is rational enough to overturn the lower court and/or that there are enough sensible people in the Legislature to change the rules.

---

NIMBYSM in CA the great political unifier.

---

In this case though, if you're a NIMBY living nearby, wouldn't you rather have a lot of nerdy students next block instead of dozens of homeless, junkies and drug pushers?

We'll probably have to wait until the Boomers indoctrinated into the 60s cult die out before this project ever gets started...

Cal88 said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

The single party system in CA continues to let land use be dictated by cooks and courts causing endless delays for property owners. Hope Sebasta is right that the State Supreme Court is rational enough to overturn the lower court and/or that there are enough sensible people in the Legislature to change the rules.

---

NIMBYSM in CA the great political unifier.

---

In this case though, if you're a NIMBY living nearby, wouldn't you rather have a lot of nerdy students next block instead of dozens of homeless, junkies and drug pushers?

We'll probably have to wait until the Boomers indoctrinated into the 60s cult die out before this project ever gets started...

---

I don't really get how NIMBYism applies here. The area is surrounded by apartment buildings, churches and businesses, not single family homes. A student housing facility is fundamentally consistent with the nature of housing in the area.

Edit - I'm assuming it's still apartments, like it was when I lived in one 3 doors down from PP. I guess it could have changed but given general anti-development sentiment I'm assuming it's fundamentally unchanged.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

The single party system in CA continues to let land use be dictated by cooks and courts causing endless delays for property owners. Hope Sebasta is right that the State Supreme Court is rational enough to overturn the lower court and/or that there are enough sensible people in the Legislature to change the rules.

---

NIMBYSM in CA the great political unifier.

---

In this case though, if you're a NIMBY living nearby, wouldn't you rather have a lot of nerdy students next block instead of dozens of homeless, junkies and drug pushers?

We'll probably have to wait until the Boomers indoctrinated into the 60s cult die out before this project ever gets started...

---

I don't really get how NIMBYism applies here. The area is surrounded by apartment buildings, not single family homes. A student housing facility is fundamentally consistent with the nature of housing in the area.

Edit - I'm assuming it's till apartments, like it was when I lived in one 3 doors down from PP. I guess it could have changed but given general anti-development sentiment I'm assuming it's fundamentally unchanged.

---

The folks behind the lawsuits are in the area. You don't have to live in a single family home to not want new development in your backyard.

A few wealthy Berkeley homeowners should not be able to block desperately needed student housing for years and even decades.

CEQA needs to change and we are committed to working with the legislature so California can build more housing. pic.twitter.com/3NC0SsLnMT

— Office of the Governor of California (@CAgovernor) February 25, 2023

socaliganbear said:

---

A few wealthy Berkeley homeowners should not be able to block desperately needed student housing for years and even decades.

CEQA needs to change and we are committed to working with the legislature so California can build more housing. pic.twitter.com/3NC0SsLnMT

— Office of the Governor of California (@CAgovernor) February 25, 2023

---

I'm coming around to the view that these lunatic judges and these NIMBY whiners are doing us a solid. Letting their freak flag fly will do more for the cause of housing and CEQA reform in 50 days than we've been able to accomplish in 50 years. So good on ya!

Our understanding of what is an environmental hazard has evolved since 1970. But regardless of whether we are talking about then or now students are and never were "pollution." And building student housing in a University town is a social good.

Anyone who doesn't want to live near students shouldn't have bought a house within spitting distance of the flagship university of the largest state in the union.

On top of students not being pollution, building student housing close to campus is going to reduce pollution by allowing more students to live close by and not commute.

Cal Strong strongly agrees with almost all the comments here. His only problem with the plan is it shouldn't include housing for the community and it should have another 5,000 beds. Build it to the sky.

okaydo said:

---

A few wealthy Berkeley homeowners should not be able to block desperately needed student housing for years and even decades.

CEQA needs to change and we are committed to working with the legislature so California can build more housing. pic.twitter.com/3NC0SsLnMT

— Office of the Governor of California (@CAgovernor) February 25, 2023

---

Governor Newsom helped push through legislation last year that allows increased multifamily developments (which would include dormitories) all over the State of California.

The effectiveness of that legislation could all be stopped or severely delayed if this Appellate Court decision is not overruled.

If the CA Supreme Court doesn't overrule the "novel" and in my view unreasonable interpretation of CEQA I believe the GOV will force through an amendment to CEQA.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

Cal Strong strongly agrees with almost all the comments here. His only problem with the plan is it shouldn't include housing for the community and it should have another 5,000 beds. Build it to the sky.

---

Remember the practical building limitations imposed by the fact that the Hayward Fault is just a few blocks East of PP. building the dorm substantially higher gets very very expensive

---

Pretty sure he was being sarcastic about "building to the sky". But personally don't like the idea of housing vulnerable young students next to random homeless people. I mean - What could go wrong? Maybe if the homeless were carefully vetted families and single mothers.