Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Cal Wins! Cal Wins?

[EDIT: If there are any lawyers out there, or law students, or people who like reading 129 page decisions, who would like to give a more comprehensive overview of the decision, feel free to leave a comment or shoot me an email. The ruling can be found here.]

I've been asked many times why I never pursued law school. It's moments like these that remind me why I chose the road "less traveled."

So after an unnecessarily painful delay, one that had many wondering if a ruling would be released at all today, as it had previously been promised by Judge Miller, it appears a ruling has been given for now...

Judge Miller has ruled in favor of the University in nearly every aspect of challenges to its environmental impact report and seismic review involving the University's plans to build the student athletic facility next to the stadium.

In a huge victory for Cal, Judge Miller has ruled that the two buildings have been declared to be separate, BUT, Cal will have to document the grade beam's value versus the stadium value to comply with the Alquist-Priolo Act. Ummm...okay. This has led to the continuance of the injunction, halting the commencement of the construction.

To break it down in commoner's terms, it's like this yo: the University has like pretty much won in every aspect of the case, but the one area they need to provide further evidence for and revise, is enough to continue holding off on the construction for now.

Consequently, both sides think they've won.

The University thinks they're 95% there, and believe the injunction will be cleared in a matted of days.

In fact, The University's press release states:
"'We are thrilled that the judge concluded that state seismic law will allow the Student-Athlete High Performance Center to be built on the site' adjacent to California Memorial Stadium, said Vice Chancellor for Administration Nathan Brostrom. 'This is a major victory for our students.'"

On the other hand, The Berkeley Daily Planet is declaring it a victory for the tree-huggers:
"Stephan Volker, one of the attorneys suing the university, hailed the judge’s ruling as a victory.
'We are ecstatic,” Volker said.'"

So...okay...I'm kind of confused. Not really in my understanding of what took place today, but how I should be feeling about it. I think Ken Crawford over at Excuse Me For My Voice said it best:
"So for me, to sum it up: The university has won more than it lost, but it’s not a complete victory, and at this point any delay is a victory for the anti-stadium crusaders."

Well said Ken. So I feel good, I think, but not as good as if the University had won outright. I totally understand how old 'Dubya feels right now.

1 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why is the "value" of a temporary retaining beam at issue? Is it part of the permanent addition? If not, isn't it the same as most retaining walls used during construction and then demolished? And the entire stadium isn't worth twice the cost of this beam? Confusing to say the least.