after reading these documents, i really can’t see how a judge couldn’t rule in UC’s favor. the petitioners’ arguments look weak and baseless next to these strong and thorough arguments. well done, lawyer people. well done.

i was a little worried about the elimination of the grade beam, but after having read pp. 63-65 on the third (longest) document, i’m a lot more reassured. a letter from one of the principal engineers on the project states that the grade beam was never inserted for safety reasons, but merely to prevent possible cosmetic damage (cracking) of the west face of Memorial Stadium, due to “nominal horizontal outward displacement of the shoring” (the wall might move a little). while it would be nice if UC were allowed to put the beam in there, it certainly makes me feel better that no one’s safety is being compromised by this decision.

We won… we really won.

“Victory!!!” (ignore the zeg heil and the illegal shift)

I know as a Cal fan it feels icky to be overconfident about anything… it almost feels wrong. You keep looking for reasons for why we didn’t really win. But as someone who’s read the ruling and all the recent filings, I’m frickn beaming right now. What did we win?

TRUE GOAL: What we really wanted was the SAHPC to be built so we can keep Tedford and recruit the best kids. Let me make this clear… NOTHING CAN STOP THAT NOW.

The only legal claim the Hills had remaining were the three additions eg “grade beam”. However, those additions are not needed on the SAHPC… and in last night’s filing we decided to leave those for a later phase or scrap it altogether. You can’t file an injunction on something that is NO LONGER IN THE PLANS.

Hills Association Goal: Many of you think that the Hills Association’s main goal was to just delay the project even though they knew they would fail. OR that their goal was to delay the project until Tedford left. No way.

The Hills Association were in this to win… If you read the ruling you’ll know that they swung for the fences and argued every little tiny thing under the law… (this is why I think the appeal gets tossed based on merit).

They wasted tons of time, energy and social capital and they’ve squandered the goodwill of the judge. Plus if you read last night’s documents, you’ll know that even they are admitting they’ve got nothing but the “grade beam” argument left… guess what?... we just tossed the grade beam.

As thorough as the documents are, and as much as I know that rationally, the case is over, I can’t help but feel the judge will find some way to screw us over.

Only when the injunction is lifted will the legal boner from reading the slam dunk arguments in the UC’s filings may finally be justified.

did you know brazil is about to build a series of hydroelectric dams that are going to engulf huge swaths of some of the most sensitive ecological areas the amazon?

two dams valued at about $5.3 billion apiece are going up on the Madeira River and another $11 billion dam on the Xingu River is being planned for next year.

one of the most active groups working to stop these projects is international rivers network who turn out to be based – wait for it – right there in berkeley, california. they are desperate for folks to help out in the effort to just increase awareness and they actually know their stuff.

so if after this bizarre little incident is over and all these hippies are still desperate to save some trees that need saving, feel free to tell them about this and urge them to help out. seriously.

Why do I continue to read Carolyn Jones? It’s like a train wreck. You fear to watch, but cannot turn away.

Really, I have to give it to her. I have to give her much respect. As each step seems to go more and more in Cal’s favour, she has to work harder and harder to come up with more of her classic brand of “shmuckolism.” Here’s her latest classic. It’s a comedy of errors. Also, comedy.

Here’s her headline:

UC compromises on key stadium issues

UC Berkeley made key concessions Friday in its long-running standoff with the city, tree-sitting protesters and neighbors of Memorial Stadium that the university hopes will clear the way for its plans to build an athletic training center next to the stadium.

Here’s another interesting quote:

Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates said the City Council will meet next week to discuss the case, but any decisions are premature until the judge issues her final ruling.

“Our concern is and always has been safety,” he said. “I just hope that by removing the grade beam they’re not going to be causing problems for the western wall of the stadium.”

If he is so concerned about safety, maybe he should call the dogs off so that Cal can work to retrofit the stadium. Or maybe he can just talk the talk and fail to walk the walk.

Here’s an interesting angle:

Most of the plaintiffs want the landmark stadium razed and a new stadium built elsewhere.

The university would like to preserve the stadium, which was named by Sports Illustrated as the best place in the United States to watch a college football game and is on the National Register of Historic Places.

They want a historic place destroyed? How odd.

I know I’m desperately biased, but I honestly found UC’s arguments on lifting the injunction powerful and convincing.

I also like the way they pitched their arguments around the “modifications”. Their preferred ruling is that the judge just accept that these modifications will no longer take place, hence no AP or valuation issues. But they also add just in case that they should be able to break ground:

In other words, at most, the Court should modify the Preliminary Injunction to prevent the Three Alterations until and unless the Value Determination has been made.

So even if the judge wants a value determination for the three alterations, we can start the project while the issue is being settled.

Well done lawyers, we’re in really good shape now!!!

What is the timeline now??

Hearing July 1 and ruling July 22 or hearing July 22 and ruling even later??

Linked from The Daily Clog… woo!

cause i am a dubs fan random comment

pwnage