As usual, the DailyCal got most of the article wrong. At this point, the plan--if Edwards is demolished--is to renovate the fields up at Clark Kerr, perhaps using Berkeley High in the interim, and keep T&F and Soccer. The Chancellor is well aware of the diversity issue--especially with T&F, less so with soccer. There is no way that Women's soccer can possibly be cut given Title IX considerations, so a new field must be found regardless. Edwards is a seismic disaster and would need massive retrofitting if it were preserved. One other possibility I heard was that the stands at Edwards would be demolished, the field moved to a corner with a small portable bleacher, and buildings would be put on the rest of the footprint along with the pink and green monstrosity on Kittredge and Fulton (the old ATO offices). BTW, John Wilton was NOT in charge of the funding plan for CMS, that was his predecessor, Nathan Brostrom. Nonetheless, Wilton's comments are more or less useless.

As for People's Park. If you've been reading carefully my earlier posts, the Chancellor has a plan that she's trying to work out with Berkeley mayor (he's receptive, btw) to put student housing, homeless housing, and a smaller "memorial" park on the property. She's already moved ahead with planning for that, although the blowback from the fringe in Berkeley is going to be massive.

UrsaMajor said:

---

As for People's Park. If you've been reading carefully my earlier posts, the Chancellor has a plan that she's trying to work out with Berkeley mayor (he's receptive, btw) to put student housing, homeless housing, and a smaller "memorial" park on the property. She's already moved ahead with planning for that, although the blowback from the fringe in Berkeley is going to be massive.

---

The optics of that seems a bit curious. "Hey mom and dad, congrats, you son/daughter got student housing right next to our homeless shelter. No, don't worry about crime or drugs or personal safety, everything is going to be just fine."

I lived 3 apartment buildings away from PP. it was bad enough being near that cesspool when it existed through indifference and some random sense of cultural history. But to put kids next to homeless people by choice, as part of a grand plan? Meh.

tequila4kapp said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

As for People's Park. If you've been reading carefully my earlier posts, the Chancellor has a plan that she's trying to work out with Berkeley mayor (he's receptive, btw) to put student housing, homeless housing, and a smaller "memorial" park on the property. She's already moved ahead with planning for that, although the blowback from the fringe in Berkeley is going to be massive.

---

The optics of that seems a bit curious. "Hey mom and dad, congrats, you son/daughter got student housing right next to our homeless shelter. No, don't worry about crime or drugs or personal safety, everything is going to be just fine."

I lived 3 apartment buildings away from PP. it was bad enough being near that cesspool when it existed through indifference and some random sense of cultural history. But to put kids next to homeless people by choice, as part of a grand plan? Meh.

---

Completely agree. Mixing student housing with housing for the homeless, both of which would be next to a smaller "memorial" park dedicated to drug use, is a terrible idea. I expect better from the Chancellor of U.C. Berkeley (although not the Mayor of Berkeley).

Cal Junkie said:

---

Edwards slated for destruction moves up a notch. As a track alumni, this is terrible news.

Cal soccer, Cal track/cross country (and to a lesser extent the Cal Triathlon Club) feature arguably the most diverse teams on campus, and all rely on this facility. Cal T&F and XC commit to an extraordinary amount of volunteer work, and have the highest collective GPAs of any sport. This is a sport that allows student-athletes from lower income families a shot to obtain a scholarship or a spot at attending UC Berkeley.

Football messed up by incurring a $450 million debt. Cal has been doing it wrong for a long time.

Here is the link to today's dismal Daily Cal article and it does not appear that the chancellor gives much of a flip about track/soccer or football for that matter: http://www.dailycal.org/2017/11/02/uc-berkeley-chancellor-proposes-assuming-portion-cal-athletics-debt-exchange-developing-edwards-stadium/

So we have to build on something? How about we bite the bullet, face the local fall-out and take People's Park back from the heroin addicts. That's a nice chunk of free space right there.

---

Edwards is also falling apart. They're just going to move to a new facility at Clark Kerr.

Governments are in fact different because they don't work on a profit, corporate or small business motive. Their job is to pass legislation to fund infrastructure and things that traditionally do not make profits, like: police, fire and emergency services, education, health, etc.

If you need a clear example of how this works, look no further than the current POTUS. He's trying to operate government like a business and it's not working. Government is far from perfect in operations but the alternative of "government like business" just doesn't work. You can disagree of course but that doesn't make your position right, correct or practical.

triplebear said:

---

Governments are in fact different because they don't work on a profit, corporate or small business motive. Their job is to pass legislation to fund infrastructure and things that traditionally do not make profits, like: police, fire and emergency services, education, health, etc.

If you need a clear example of how this works, look no further than the current POTUS. He's trying to operate government like a business and it's not working. Government is far from perfect in operations but the alternative of "government like business" just doesn't work. You can disagree of course but that doesn't make your position right, correct or practical.

---

This country would be far better off if it were re-aligned along libertarian principles rather than the bloated mess we have today, where many firemen, policemen, and BART workers annually make $150,000+, $200,00+ or even $300,000+ with ridiculous defined benefit pensions handed to them at a relatively young age. Berkeley is projected to soon go bankrupt by independent auditors, its infrastructure is literally crumbling, yet millions are handed out to attract the homeless from all over the U.S. Your cute little libertarian cartoon, which appears on this board once every six months like clockwork, is silly and doesn't further your argument. I won't say another word on this topic as politics don't belong on this board.

So you like what Gov, Brownback did in Kansas, and what is going on in Honduras, right?

So far those are the two shining example of Libertarian principles in operation.

If you have any other example of Libertarians fully governing a city, county, state or country, please share it with everyone.

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

triplebear said:

---

Governments are in fact different because they don't work on a profit, corporate or small business motive. Their job is to pass legislation to fund infrastructure and things that traditionally do not make profits, like: police, fire and emergency services, education, health, etc.

If you need a clear example of how this works, look no further than the current POTUS. He's trying to operate government like a business and it's not working. Government is far from perfect in operations but the alternative of "government like business" just doesn't work. You can disagree of course but that doesn't make your position right, correct or practical.

---

This country would be far better off if it were re-aligned along libertarian principles rather than the bloated mess we have today, where many firemen, policemen, and BART workers annually make $150,000+, $200,00+ or even $300,000+ with ridiculous defined benefit pensions handed to them at a relatively young age. Berkeley is projected to soon go bankrupt by independent auditors, its infrastructure is literally crumbling, yet millions are handed out to attract the homeless from all over the U.S. Your cute little libertarian cartoon, which appears on this board once every six months like clockwork, is silly and doesn't further your argument. I won't say another word on this topic as politics don't belong on this board.

---

Politics don't belong on this board! Now let me explain my politics. Oh I'll stop now, and so should you, because politics don't belong on this board!

Fair enough...now please explain this to everyone as well while you're telling me.

SFCityBear said:

---

We can hope or dream, but it is likely just another shell game, trying to hide the debt long enough to get their own pensions before the dam breaks.

I remember discussing with a fellow UC alum (now a financially secure progressive socialist), the massive increase in the national debt that was taking place during the Obama administration. I said to her that any economic unit, whether it is a single person, a married couple, a self-employed businessman, a partnership, or a corporation, will fail if it continues year after year to spend a lot more money than it generates in income.

Her reply to me was, "Governments are different." I was stunned. In the face of facts, including the collapse of several communist and socialist governments, plus the impending failure of progressive-run Illinois and the failures of cities, like Detroit, Stockton, and San Bernardino, how could anyone believe such a fantasy?

Government includes UC Berkeley, which is a part of the California State Government educational system. The system has been run into the ground, especially over the last 50+ years of progressive leadership and its poor management, poor decisions, and self-serving greed. The State can no longer support a very low cost quality University, as the people who fund the state, the citizens, are being taxed to the limit. UC Berkeley now is forced to depend more and more on private contributions, landing research grants, higher and higher fees for students, including the implementation of tuition around 1970.

The University was founded to provide free education to the students of the State. Some students came from out of state, and they were charged a tuition from 1921 onwards. Those tuition fees also increased greatly over time. And since the University could charge higher fees of out of state and foreign students, they began to admit more and more of them, to the exclusion of many students who were citizens of the state, which subverted the original intent of establishing a public university in the first place. Another progressive program to admit undocumented applicants puts a little more pressure on citizen students, as there are now fewer and fewer slots available for them. There are only so many slots. My high school class of 300 sent 100 of us to Cal in 1959. I am still close to many of those classmates, and none of their children or grandchildren has been admitted to study at Cal.

The problem is that you can only get so much money out of taxpayers, and so much money out of students, and so much money from private contributions, before the bubble bursts. The University needs to reign in its well-intentioned but unaffordable management decisions and expenditures. The obvious start would be the salaries and pensions, but even the obvious low-hanging fruit will be painful to take away from those who expect it. But why should government employees get higher salaries and gold-plated pensions and benefits, when private industry workers do not get such largesse?

---

FWIW, this is the first time UC had not paid the debt on an athletic facility.

To understand the debt situation, you can't look at Cal, you have to understand that debt actually is controlled, issued and paid at the UC level, UC has been on a debt binge the last few years for capital projects (over 17 billion), making the stadium debt seem like spare change. The debt rating has been lowered and under pressure from Gov. Brown, the UC Regents is no longer allowed to borrow. That said, UC still has a very good ratios by investment banking standards and can easily pay off the stadium debt to the extent it chooses. I this case, UC chose to write off a portion of the debt for a variety of reasons, including the need for more land, etc.

UrsaMajor said:

---

As usual, the DailyCal got most of the article wrong. At this point, the plan--if Edwards is demolished--is to renovate the fields up at Clark Kerr, perhaps using Berkeley High in the interim, and keep T&F and Soccer. The Chancellor is well aware of the diversity issue--especially with T&F, less so with soccer. There is no way that Women's soccer can possibly be cut given Title IX considerations, so a new field must be found regardless. Edwards is a seismic disaster and would need massive retrofitting if it were preserved. One other possibility I heard was that the stands at Edwards would be demolished, the field moved to a corner with a small portable bleacher, and buildings would be put on the rest of the footprint along with the pink and green monstrosity on Kittredge and Fulton (the old ATO offices). BTW, John Wilton was NOT in charge of the funding plan for CMS, that was his predecessor, Nathan Brostrom. Nonetheless, Wilton's comments are more or less useless.

As for People's Park. If you've been reading carefully my earlier posts, the Chancellor has a plan that she's trying to work out with Berkeley mayor (he's receptive, btw) to put student housing, homeless housing, and a smaller "memorial" park on the property. She's already moved ahead with planning for that, although the blowback from the fringe in Berkeley is going to be massive.

---

Once again, thanks for posting, since Cal seems unable to communicate properly.

tequila4kapp said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

As for People's Park. If you've been reading carefully my earlier posts, the Chancellor has a plan that she's trying to work out with Berkeley mayor (he's receptive, btw) to put student housing, homeless housing, and a smaller "memorial" park on the property. She's already moved ahead with planning for that, although the blowback from the fringe in Berkeley is going to be massive.

---

The optics of that seems a bit curious. "Hey mom and dad, congrats, you son/daughter got student housing right next to our homeless shelter. No, don't worry about crime or drugs or personal safety, everything is going to be just fine."

I lived 3 apartment buildings away from PP. it was bad enough being near that cesspool when it existed through indifference and some random sense of cultural history. But to put kids next to homeless people by choice, as part of a grand plan? Meh.

---

The idea behind permanent housing for homeless (they are envisioning around 50, btw) is to get them off of the streets. The park would be one with facilities, like a normal park, and the hope is to make the area no longer a magnet for drug users/dealers. Using the entire plot for UC purposes isn't going to happen, so this would appear to be a win-win if the city remains on board.

I agree that PP is currently dangerous, but assuming that people who choose to use the housing there are dangerous or undesirable simply because they have been homeless sounds a bit mean-spirited.

Was going to post a new inflamitory thread, but decided then comical doesn't deserve that for more of the same:

UC Berkeley to tap academic funds to help bail out Memorial Stadium

If it's not coming from state funds or taxpayer funds, is it really correct to say it's coming from academic funds?

tequila4kapp said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

As for People's Park. If you've been reading carefully my earlier posts, the Chancellor has a plan that she's trying to work out with Berkeley mayor (he's receptive, btw) to put student housing, homeless housing, and a smaller "memorial" park on the property. She's already moved ahead with planning for that, although the blowback from the fringe in Berkeley is going to be massive.

---

The optics of that seems a bit curious. "Hey mom and dad, congrats, you son/daughter got student housing right next to our homeless shelter. No, don't worry about crime or drugs or personal safety, everything is going to be just fine."

I lived 3 apartment buildings away from PP. it was bad enough being near that cesspool when it existed through indifference and some random sense of cultural history. But to put kids next to homeless people by choice, as part of a grand plan? Meh.

---

Perspective . . .

There is already a new and very popular dorm complex right next to the existing PP. So I would imagine that this new iteration of mini PP/dorms would be even more popular.

socaliganbear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

As for People's Park. If you've been reading carefully my earlier posts, the Chancellor has a plan that she's trying to work out with Berkeley mayor (he's receptive, btw) to put student housing, homeless housing, and a smaller "memorial" park on the property. She's already moved ahead with planning for that, although the blowback from the fringe in Berkeley is going to be massive.

---

The optics of that seems a bit curious. "Hey mom and dad, congrats, you son/daughter got student housing right next to our homeless shelter. No, don't worry about crime or drugs or personal safety, everything is going to be just fine."

I lived 3 apartment buildings away from PP. it was bad enough being near that cesspool when it existed through indifference and some random sense of cultural history. But to put kids next to homeless people by choice, as part of a grand plan? Meh.

---

Perspective . . .

There is already a new and very popular dorm complex right next to the existing PP. So I would imagine that this new iteration of mini PP/dorms would be even more popular.

---

Given the cost of rent, I'd can't see how any university housing would be unpopular.

I'd like to see Cal pull a bait and switch on PP. Say they are building a shelter, then change their mind after it's built. Offer up another site x the size and who could say no. Mostly joking, but it's 110% not the mission of a university to provide housing for the homeless.

PP is a dump, and IMO the Unversity bears a lot of the blame for not actively clearing it out or developing it.

ColoradoBear said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

As for People's Park. If you've been reading carefully my earlier posts, the Chancellor has a plan that she's trying to work out with Berkeley mayor (he's receptive, btw) to put student housing, homeless housing, and a smaller "memorial" park on the property. She's already moved ahead with planning for that, although the blowback from the fringe in Berkeley is going to be massive.

---

The optics of that seems a bit curious. "Hey mom and dad, congrats, you son/daughter got student housing right next to our homeless shelter. No, don't worry about crime or drugs or personal safety, everything is going to be just fine."

I lived 3 apartment buildings away from PP. it was bad enough being near that cesspool when it existed through indifference and some random sense of cultural history. But to put kids next to homeless people by choice, as part of a grand plan? Meh.

---

Perspective . . .

There is already a new and very popular dorm complex right next to the existing PP. So I would imagine that this new iteration of mini PP/dorms would be even more popular.

---

Given the cost of rent, I'd can't see how any university housing would be unpopular.

I'd like to see Cal pull a bait and switch on PP. Say they are building a shelter, then change their mind after it's built. Offer up another site x the size and who could say no. Mostly joking, but it's 110% not the mission of a university to provide housing for the homeless.

PP is a dump, and IMO the Unversity bears a lot of the blame for not actively clearing it out or developing it.

---

Right, which is why ultimately optics don't matter. They'll be built, there'll be more students trying to get in than there is space for, and they'll be incredibly expensive.

ColoradoBear said:

---

Was going to post a new inflamitory thread, but decided then comical doesn't deserve that for more of the same:

UC Berkeley to tap academic funds to help bail out Memorial Stadium

If it's not coming from state funds or taxpayer funds, is it really correct to say it's coming from academic funds?

---

No, it's totally INCORRECT. Fact: the debt service has to be paid. What is being done is a bookkeeping change. If IA were to remain responsible for the entire debt, it would still be drawing down on general funds, since it can't service the debt. Of course, the idiot French professor (it would be French) who said that in a few years we'd have a stadium and no university probably wants the football team disbanded. Then they can assume ALL the debt.

For a while, I had hopes that *******imov was beginning to be more reasonable, but this proves that you can't change character.

Speaking of new housing:

The densification of Bancroft continues:

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2017/10/bigger-plans-for-low-slung-berkeley-shopping-center-site.html

SFCityBear said:

---

We can hope or dream, but it is likely just another shell game, trying to hide the debt long enough to get their own pensions before the dam breaks.

I remember discussing with a fellow UC alum (now a financially secure progressive socialist), the massive increase in the national debt that was taking place during the Obama administration. I said to her that any economic unit, whether it is a single person, a married couple, a self-employed businessman, a partnership, or a corporation, will fail if it continues year after year to spend a lot more money than it generates in income.

Her reply to me was, "Governments are different." I was stunned. In the face of facts, including the collapse of several communist and socialist governments, plus the impending failure of progressive-run Illinois and the failures of cities, like Detroit, Stockton, and San Bernardino, how could anyone believe such a fantasy?

Government includes UC Berkeley, which is a part of the California State Government educational system. The system has been run into the ground, especially over the last 50+ years of progressive leadership and its poor management, poor decisions, and self-serving greed. The State can no longer support a very low cost quality University, as the people who fund the state, the citizens, are being taxed to the limit. UC Berkeley now is forced to depend more and more on private contributions, landing research grants, higher and higher fees for students, including the implementation of tuition around 1970.

The University was founded to provide free education to the students of the State. Some students came from out of state, and they were charged a tuition from 1921 onwards. Those tuition fees also increased greatly over time. And since the University could charge higher fees of out of state and foreign students, they began to admit more and more of them, to the exclusion of many students who were citizens of the state, which subverted the original intent of establishing a public university in the first place. Another progressive program to admit undocumented applicants puts a little more pressure on citizen students, as there are now fewer and fewer slots available for them. There are only so many slots. My high school class of 300 sent 100 of us to Cal in 1959. I am still close to many of those classmates, and none of their children or grandchildren has been admitted to study at Cal.

The problem is that you can only get so much money out of taxpayers, and so much money out of students, and so much money from private contributions, before the bubble bursts. The University needs to reign in its well-intentioned but unaffordable management decisions and expenditures. The obvious start would be the salaries and pensions, but even the obvious low-hanging fruit will be painful to take away from those who expect it. But why should government employees get higher salaries and gold-plated pensions and benefits, when private industry workers do not get such largesse?

---

OT--Have you factored in our Government's costs of wars fought in foreign lands to protect private US investments? That would cost a few bucks wouldn't you say? Or is it just the cost of doing business? And you can spread that cost over several administrations . . . Truman, Eisenhower (Dulles bros), Kennedy, Johnson, Ford, Carter, Reagan (in all fairness this nitwit attempted to partly finance our wars privately), Bush-I, Clinton, Bush-II, Obama, and clueless Trump wants to cutback long term spending with preemptive strikes.

UrsaMajor said:

---

Golden One said:

---

GMP said:

---

Golden One said:

---

They should move all the debt for the rebuild off the Athletic Department's books.

---

Typical Librull, always lookin for a handout or a bailout.

---

It's not a handout, since the university owns the facilities in question, not the Athletic Department.

---

Correct. The argument for keeping part of the debt on IA's books (other than the fact that it wouldn't be politically possible to move all of it) is that the SAHPC was done specifically for the department and not for seismic reasons. ....... this was the rationale for moving 54% of the debt to the campus' books.

......

---

Has the pct of debt to be moved off IA been finalized and announced? Wilner's article (published Nov 2nd) suggested that the pct was still being determined.

BGGB2 said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

Golden One said:

---

GMP said:

---

Golden One said:

---

They should move all the debt for the rebuild off the Athletic Department's books.

---

Typical Librull, always lookin for a handout or a bailout.

---

It's not a handout, since the university owns the facilities in question, not the Athletic Department.

---

Correct. The argument for keeping part of the debt on IA's books (other than the fact that it wouldn't be politically possible to move all of it) is that the SAHPC was done specifically for the department and not for seismic reasons. ....... this was the rationale for moving 54% of the debt to the campus' books.

......

---

Has the pct of debt to be moved off IA been finalized and announced? Wilner's article (published Nov 2nd) suggested that the pct was still being determined.

---

It's not a percentage. The amount is the amount that was for seismic retrofitting and not for facility upgrades.

bearchamp said:

---

Anyone else see some irony in a post by "Golden One"?

---

The "Golden One" fails in tone and content.

71Bear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

GMP said:

---

Golden One said:

---

They should move all the debt for the rebuild off the Athletic Department's books.

---

Typical Librull, always lookin for a handout or a bailout.

---

It's not a handout, since the university owns the facilities in question, not the Athletic Department.

---

Athletics are an extracurricular activity that generates its own source of revenue. Therefore, they should live within the scope of that funding. I completely agree with the approach that the Chancellor is taking. Take responsibility for your actions and balance the damn budget by 2020. (and pay for the luxury that you have chosen to build)....

---

So are you against sports programs in high schools, JCs, CSUs and the other UCs unless they are self-sustaining? (None are currently). If not, why are you requiring that of Cal?

UrsaMajor said:

---

The idea behind permanent housing for homeless (they are envisioning around 50, btw) is to get them off of the streets.

---

It's not the university's responsibility to get Berkeley's homeless people off the streets. It's only interest should be the welfare and safety of the students.

Great addition that will provide 122 additional housing units and generally upgrade the area.

Golden One said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

The idea behind permanent housing for homeless (they are envisioning around 50, btw) is to get them off of the streets.

---

It's not the university's responsibility to get Berkeley's homeless people off the streets. It's only interest should be the welfare and safety of the students.

---

Part of that is helping the community in which Cal exists to be a better place to live. Continual town-gown battles serve no one. Trust me, having been at Harvard where the fights got to the point that the city refused to send fire engines to a fire on campus, it is far better to try and aid the community in which you live rather than go the "I'm only in it for myself" route. To return this to sports--do you think that having more homeless on the streets of Berkeley helps recruiting?

I would imagine that they will lease a small portion of PP land to a 3rd party and have them develop and run the facility. We're already doing this for all new housing, so I doubt Cal will actually build and operate this themselves.

joe yaks said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

We can hope or dream, but it is likely just another shell game, trying to hide the debt long enough to get their own pensions before the dam breaks.

I remember discussing with a fellow UC alum (now a financially secure progressive socialist), the massive increase in the national debt that was taking place during the Obama administration. I said to her that any economic unit, whether it is a single person, a married couple, a self-employed businessman, a partnership, or a corporation, will fail if it continues year after year to spend a lot more money than it generates in income.

Her reply to me was, "Governments are different." I was stunned. In the face of facts, including the collapse of several communist and socialist governments, plus the impending failure of progressive-run Illinois and the failures of cities, like Detroit, Stockton, and San Bernardino, how could anyone believe such a fantasy?

Government includes UC Berkeley, which is a part of the California State Government educational system. The system has been run into the ground, especially over the last 50+ years of progressive leadership and its poor management, poor decisions, and self-serving greed. The State can no longer support a very low cost quality University, as the people who fund the state, the citizens, are being taxed to the limit. UC Berkeley now is forced to depend more and more on private contributions, landing research grants, higher and higher fees for students, including the implementation of tuition around 1970.

The University was founded to provide free education to the students of the State. Some students came from out of state, and they were charged a tuition from 1921 onwards. Those tuition fees also increased greatly over time. And since the University could charge higher fees of out of state and foreign students, they began to admit more and more of them, to the exclusion of many students who were citizens of the state, which subverted the original intent of establishing a public university in the first place. Another progressive program to admit undocumented applicants puts a little more pressure on citizen students, as there are now fewer and fewer slots available for them. There are only so many slots. My high school class of 300 sent 100 of us to Cal in 1959. I am still close to many of those classmates, and none of their children or grandchildren has been admitted to study at Cal.

The problem is that you can only get so much money out of taxpayers, and so much money out of students, and so much money from private contributions, before the bubble bursts. The University needs to reign in its well-intentioned but unaffordable management decisions and expenditures. The obvious start would be the salaries and pensions, but even the obvious low-hanging fruit will be painful to take away from those who expect it. But why should government employees get higher salaries and gold-plated pensions and benefits, when private industry workers do not get such largesse?

---

OT--Have you factored in our Government's costs of wars fought in foreign lands to protect private US investments? That would cost a few bucks wouldn't you say? Or is it just the cost of doing business? And you can spread that cost over several administrations . . . Truman, Eisenhower (Dulles bros), Kennedy, Johnson, Ford, Carter, Reagan (in all fairness this nitwit attempted to partly finance our wars privately), Bush-I, Clinton, Bush-II, Obama, and clueless Trump wants to cutback long term spending with preemptive strikes.

---

I wonder if libertarians would be willing to have private interests fund 'wars in foreign lands' .......

socaliganbear said:

---

Perspective . . .

There is already a new and very popular dorm complex right next to the existing PP. So I would imagine that this new iteration of mini PP/dorms would be even more popular.

---

Not exactly. It is physically separated from PP by Haste St, is on the campus side of PP and IIRC oriented so the entrance is on the opposite side of the facility from PP. That means the residents likely have minimal interaction with PP "stuff".

That is very different from sharing the same physical space. Think about the Commons and that house / building that is also on the same property. It has virtually the same physical footprint as PP. Now add a memorial park type thing. It is a challenging space to achieve all 3 stated objectives, especially since it is a virtual certainty that the park part of the project will continue to be a homeless / drug use area.

I lived as close to PP as the residents of the Commons. We were on the opposite side and had to actually interact with PP. There were very real and regular safety issues. I expect residents of the new facility will face the same issues.

tequila4kapp said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

Perspective . . .

There is already a new and very popular dorm complex right next to the existing PP. So I would imagine that this new iteration of mini PP/dorms would be even more popular.

---

Not exactly. It is physically separated from PP by Haste St, is on the campus side of PP and IIRC oriented so the entrance is on the opposite side of the facility from PP. That means the residents likely have minimal interaction with PP "stuff".

That is very different from sharing the same physical space. Think about the Commons and that house / building that is also on the same property. It has virtually the same physical footprint as PP. Now add a memorial park type thing. It is a challenging space to achieve all 3 stated objectives, especially since it is a virtual certainty that the park part of the project will continue to be a homeless / drug use area.

I lived as close to PP as the residents of the Commons. We were on the opposite side and had to actually interact with PP. There were very real and regular safety issues. I expect residents of the new facility will face the same issues.

---

We'll agree to disagree. Transition housing exists all over the place and for the most part, you can't tell the difference. I would imagine that with this in place, both the city and university will be able to enforce order on whatever park space exists. It also sounds like the plan is for an active park, not just green space. If orientation is all that matters, you could just as easily have dorms and transition housing facing opposite sides of that giant plot.

Ultimately, it really doesn't matter. It's new housing in Berkeley. Students will line up for it.

Had some interesting conversations before the game yesterday. After a full AM of conversation, Asimov rewrote the article about the stadium debt:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/UC-Berkeley-to-tap-academic-funds-to-help-bail-12330822.php

Of course, the rewrite doesn't change the print version. Turns out, she never went to the Senate meeting, and relied on a single anti-athletic prof for her information. btw, the French prof. who gave the ridiculous quote is a real nut-job: she believes CMS should be torn down and the university should just default! She's also a big supporter of Antifa, including their violence.

Asimov doesn't get $ at all. She couldn't understand the idea that money is fungible, and that the debt is being paid regardless of which account is debited. As an aside, there was a conversation with her in which she was questioning why donors were given "free meals" at university events. It was explained to her that the donors were buying tables for $25,000 apiece, which included dinner (news flash: the dinner didn't cost $2500/person), but she still couldn't get it.

Yogi is, of course, correct that the debt attributable to seismic retrofitting is a dollar amount, not a percentage. I believe it is expressed in %age terms for ease of communication. I was originally told around 54%; I hear the figure is now closer to 60%. The reason it is difficult to calculate is because some of the work was done in part because of the retrofit and in part because of improvements. For example, the press box needed to be torn down for safety reasons; however, the upgrades to the clubs weren't necessary. How do you apportion that?

UrsaMajor said:

---

Golden One said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

The idea behind permanent housing for homeless (they are envisioning around 50, btw) is to get them off of the streets.

---

It's not the university's responsibility to get Berkeley's homeless people off the streets. It's only interest should be the welfare and safety of the students.

---

Part of that is helping the community in which Cal exists to be a better place to live. Continual town-gown battles serve no one. Trust me, having been at Harvard where the fights got to the point that the city refused to send fire engines to a fire on campus, it is far better to try and aid the community in which you live rather than go the "I'm only in it for myself" route. To return this to sports--do you think that having more homeless on the streets of Berkeley helps recruiting?

---

The city of Berkeley should do everything in its power to aid the university, which is by far its greatest asset. The financial situation of the university does not enable it to spend money to solve the city's problems. And regarding recruiting, I don't think the number of homeless people on the streets of Berkeley has any impact on recruiting. As a father, I certainly wouldn't want my daughters (or sons) living in a residential facility that houses students and the homeless, given that the latter tend to be a mix of drug addicts and people with mental problems.

No one is talking about a single facility. As has been pointed out, there already is a dorm essentially next to PP. Anyone who doesn't believe that the environment around a university is part of the equation when someone is choosing where to live for 4 or 5 years is delusional. I have spoken to coaches who say frequently that the city of Berkeley is a factor that they need to deal with (just as Corvallis is in a different way for OSU).

Of course, the city of Berkeley should do more, but they don't and aren't going to. Town-gown partnerships are the only way to get things done.

UrsaMajor said:

---

No one is talking about a single facility. As has been pointed out, there already is a dorm essentially next to PP. Anyone who doesn't believe that the environment around a university is part of the equation when someone is choosing where to live for 4 or 5 years is delusional. I have spoken to coaches who say frequently that the city of Berkeley is a factor that they need to deal with (just as Corvallis is in a different way for OSU).

Of course, the city of Berkeley should do more, but they don't and aren't going to. Town-gown partnerships are the only way to get things done.

---

I can certainly understand that the city of Berkeley itself could be a detriment in recruiting, given the lunatics in city hall and the general condition of the city. But the fact that there is already a dorm essentially next to Peoples Park doesn't mean that putting another larger one there is the right decision or that it would make me feel more comfortable having my daughters live there.

Check out the difference:

Merc with a totally different (and more accurate) take on the stadium debt. *****the Chronic.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/02/big-relief-cal-to-move-a-portion-of-stadium-debt-off-athletic-departments-books/