Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiBerkeley Tree-Sitters Finally Down To Earth
BERKELEY, Calif. - With a short jump onto a scaffolding platform, four tree-sitters peacefully ended a 649-day standoff with UC Berkeley on Tuesday over the university's plan to cut down a grove of trees to build an athletic training center.
![[Ending a nearly 2-year protest, the final tree-sitter waves to the crowd moments before he comes out of the redwood tree. (Mike Kepka / The Chronicle)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/treesitter.0910.jpg "treesitter.0910.jpg")
The protesters voluntarily climbed down from an 80-foot redwood next
to Memorial Stadium about 1:30 p.m. after four hours of negotiations
with UC Police Chief Victoria Harrison as she hung in a basket
suspended from a 200-foot-tall crane.
After shouting "We love you!" to a crowd of about 500 supporters and onlookers on the ground, the sitters surrendered to police, who arrested them on misdemeanor charges of trespassing, violating a court order and illegal lodging. They were taken to Santa Rita Jail in Dublin.
The encampment, which began Dec. 1, 2006, and included at its peak more than a dozen people living on limbs of oak and redwood trees, was one of the longest tree-sits ever, falling short of Julia Butterfly Hill's 738-day stay in a coast redwood in Humboldt County a decade ago.
"We are extremely relieved this has ended and no one was hurt," said Vice Chancellor Nathan Brostrom. "Today's operation was brilliant in design and operation."
The university planned to chop down the redwood by today, clearing the way for construction of the $124 million training center. The plan was delayed nearly two years after the city of Berkeley, a tree-advocacy group and stadium neighbors filed lawsuits alleging that the project was not safe because of its proximity to the Hayward Fault.
Protesters said they decided to come down when university officials agreed to include the community in future land-use decisions. The tree-sitters had also asked the university to donate $6 million to environmental and Native American groups and give them the stump from their favorite tree from which they would create a drum. The university earlier agreed to give up the stump but later withdrew the offer when talks stalled.
University officials said they did not bargain with the tree-sitters but had already planned to engage the community in future land-use decisions.
The protest ended because the scaffolding, which was installed Tuesday morning and built up until it reached a platform just below the treetop, made it impossible for the tree-sitters to fight back or escape, officials said.
"I think they realized our ability to remove them was possible," Harrison said.
Police identified the tree-sitters as Armando "Mando" Resendez, 20; Ernesto Trebino, 18; Raul "Huck" Colocho, 27; and Michael "Shem" Schuck, 26. Schuck made headlines in March when he spent 17 days in an oak near Wheeler Hall in the center of campus.
Emotional responses
On a campus with a long history of demonstrations and radicalism, the 21-month tree-sit ignited fierce reactions. Cal football fans were enraged over the delays to the training facility, while some environmentalists decried the plans to remove trees from the urban campus.
The city joined the fray in December 2006, filing a lawsuit that said the athletic center would bring more development to one of the most inaccessible, seismically unsafe parts of town.
The protesters hoped to save 40 or so oaks, redwoods and other trees in the 1.2-acre grove. At one point, about 15 people were living in the trees, gliding on ropes between tree-houses, cooking on camping stoves and chatting with onlookers.
After Alameda County Superior Court Judge Barbara Miller ruled mostly in the university's favor in July, campus police began arresting tree-sitters and clearing out their encampment. Police left four protesters in a single redwood, giving them daily allotments of water and energy bars and hoping they'd come down voluntarily.
The Berkeley City Council voted last month not to join the other two plaintiffs' appeal of the judge's final ruling.
On Friday, a day after a state appeals court denied the plaintiffs' request to delay construction, the university began removing trees from the grove. Weekend negotiations with the tree-sitters proved fruitless, and the protesters' provisions were cut off at 9 a.m. Monday.
At 8 a.m. Tuesday, work crews began erecting scaffolding around the redwood and positioned cherry-pickers beneath the tree-sitters' platform. Harrison, Assistant Police Chief Mitch Celaya and two other officers spent much of the morning talking to the protesters from a basket hanging from a crane, while a crowd of gawkers slowly gathered below.
Some of them erupted in cheers when arborists fired up chainsaws on the redwood's few remaining branches, while others watched in shocked disbelief at the unfolding spectacle and some appeared forlorn the protest was ending.
The tree-sitters' supporters spent Tuesday burning sage sticks, beating drums, shouting encouragement to their arboreal cohorts and scuffling with police. Five people were arrested for blocking traffic, battery on a peace officer and other misdemeanors, authorities said.
Protesters seem relieved
After nearly two years of rallies and sit-ins at the grove, many protesters seemed relieved when the tree-sitters finally descended safely.
"It could have ended better, but I'm so glad no one got hurt," said Berkeley resident Gianna Ranuzzi, who'd been around the grove since the protest began. "It's not the end, though. Just the end of a chapter."
Added Steve Sutter, a Berkeley resident: "It's embarrassing for Berkeley. I'm disappointed in the police chief that she let this go on so long. I wasn't a backer of this athletic center, but the tree-sitters made me a backer."
Freshman Vincent Tran of San Jose said he was fed up with the protest and was happy to see it end.
"It's outrageous. We need the new facility for our safety," he said. "The trees should have come down a long time ago."
Joey Grassick, a senior civil engineering major, questioned the protesters' tactics.
"Honestly, I think there's a better way they could have gone about saving these trees," he said. "But it's nice we won't have to hear about it anymore."
Trees of contention
Key dates in the 649-day battle over UC Berkeley's plan to cut down trees to build a $124 million sports training center next to Memorial Stadium:
Dec. 1, 2006 Activist Zachary Running Wolf and a woman climb into a pair of oaks before the Cal-Stanford Big Game to protect 42 trees from being felled for the center.
Dec. 20, 2006 The city of Berkeley, a tree advocacy group and stadium neighbors sue UC, saying the planned center is unsafe because of its proximity to the Hayward Fault.
Jan. 29, 2007 Alameda County Superior Court Judge Barbara Miller bars UC from building on the site until the lawsuit is resolved. Tree-sitters number half a dozen.
Aug. 30, 2007 Miller says UC can keep tree-sitters behind a chain-link fence to protect them from football fans.
July 22 Miller rules that UC can build the center after it agrees not to hold non-football events at the stadium and scratches plans for a beam connecting the stadium and training center.
Sept. 4 A state appeals court refuses to block construction, and UC cuts down 40 trees in the next three days.
Sept. 9 The four remaining tree-sitters climb down from the top of an 80-foot redwood, one of only two trees still standing near the stadium.
15 Comments so far
Show AllFlinging human waste at belligerent cops is a brilliant idea, especially if it lands where it belongs ! And yeah ... i live here amongst the brush and vegetation like pretty much everyone else and have been through the benign 'Nature Conservancy path to environmental nirvana' route before. Unfortunately the only organization who had it almost right was Earthfirst ... direct action where it hurts.
I've been by the protesters a few times during their stay and it was inspiring to see people taking such action for a noble cause.
The trees there are very old and beneficial to the surrounding campus, and lets say its "feng shui" or lay out. It's hard to believe the University couldn't have made alternative plans to keep the trees. They are certainly some of the tallest and thickest area of trees on the UC campus. I think the place will look really full of concrete and metal now.
I remember coming out of a Phil and Friends show at the Greek theater last year and walking amongst the trees. The sitters were there, and they were calm and fairly silent. The chain linked fence drew a lot of attention there, but I suppose they need it.
By the way, it wasn't only the hippie freak tree sitters who didn't want the football complex. The city of Berkeley was not happy with the plans; environmental groups, and also a group of people who want to keep things the same so they can view the football games for free from a grassy knoll on a nearby hill (hey this is Berkeley people). I too as a CA tax payer can think of a few more things that CALIFORNIA needs instead of putting tax dollars toward a football stadium. That's why the bridge fell into the Mississippi last year, because the goverment in MN was building football stadiums and such instead. Maybe they can name the new complex after Arnold, the governator. Good fiscal thinking UC!!!
Anytime an old growth tree is cut down, the earth and the people who live on it lose. Trees are very valuable in their living form as any engineer and scientist can testify. Big living trees are valuable to humans, that's a no brainer. Let's face it, UC Berkeley also makes Nuclear bombs through Livermore Lab. They've had blood on their hands for years, this motion doesn't surprise me.
I've been to the trees many times during my short stay in Berkeley to voice my support to those in the tree and those on the ground who support them. I was there yesterday when the redwood was cut down.
Many points can be made about this, but to me it was a symbolic battle of activism and student apathy. Student apathy is prevalent throughout this country, but what makes this example so striking is that UC Berkeley has the reputation of being one of the most progressive, liberal, cutting edge schools in the country.
It is also an example of unfettered growth and sprawl development versus a semblance of maintaining open spaces. Aside from major points of contention, that of a native burial ground, and tree dedicated to WWI (the war to end all wars) veterans, its just plan nice to have a small grove of trees around, and not paved over.
A vocal minority opposed it (black and white people), and while on the way to the first home football game of the season, many passing by yelled up at the Tree-Sitters "Get a Life!" "Go Home!" "Fucking Hippies!" etc I maintained a presence of asking them, "How's your life as a football spectator working out for you?" and "Takes a lot of courage to yell and walk away, why don't you climb up there and tell them how you feel?" Yet I maintain they were a minority who happened to be louder and more disrespectful, and it did not go unnoticed that most of them were wasted on cheap beer.
So while there will always be the minority of the frat boys, and those who maintain that mentality 30 years later, more disturbing was the students who were sympathetic, but were not active because of being cowed into a frightful submission by the constant force of armed, belligerent police, and the threat of losing financial aid, scholarships, etc, for getting more involved.
While I am still meditating on the ramifications of this protest, it is becoming more clear that people can not afford to sit on the sidelines and allow brutal repression and oppression take place while our environment is increasingly encroached upon by foolhardy development schemes. I am working with the theory that the game of student protest has been separated from the 60s with and extreme lack of entheogenic awareness and empowerment among the youth, so they can not see their own connection to what's happening right in front of them. Too fixed in this culture is the notion of playing the game of that leads you to suburbia with a decent salary is the only game to be explored honorably, and a good psychedelic shakeup is just what these kids need to wake up from the hypnotic sleepwalk!
I've been to the trees many times during my short stay in Berkeley to voice my support to those in the tree and those on the ground who support them. I was there yesterday when the redwood was cut down.
Many points can be made about this, but to me it was a symbolic battle of activism and student apathy. Student apathy is prevalent throughout this country, but what makes this example so striking is that UC Berkeley has the reputation of being one of the most progressive, liberal, cutting edge schools in the country.
It is also an example of unfettered growth and sprawl development versus a semblance of maintaining open spaces. Aside from major points of contention, that of a native burial ground, and tree dedicated to WWI (the war to end all wars) veterans, its just plan nice to have a small grove of trees around, and not paved over.
A vocal minority opposed it (black and white people), and while on the way to the first home football game of the season, many passing by yelled up at the Tree-Sitters "Get a Life!" "Go Home!" "Fucking Hippies!" etc I maintained a presence of asking them, "How's your life football spectator working out for you?" and "Takes a lot of courage to yell and walk away, why don't you climb up there and tell them how you feel?" Yet I maintain they were a minority who happened to be louder and more disrespectful, and it did not go unnoticed that most of them were wasted on cheap beer.
So while there will always be the minority of the frat boys, and those who maintain that mentality 30 years later, more disturbing was the students who were sympathetic, but were not active because of being cowed into a frightful submission by the constant force of armed, belligerent police, and the threat of losing financial aid, scholarships, etc, for getting more involved.
While I am still meditating on the ramifications of this protest, it is becoming more clear that people can not afford to sit on the sidelines and allow brutal repression and oppression take place while our environment is increasingly encroached upon by foolhardy development schemes. I am working with the theory that the game of student protest has been separated from the 60s with and extreme lack of entheogenic awareness and empowerment among the youth, so they can not see their own connection to what's happening right in front of them. Too fixed in this culture is the notion of playing the game of that leads you to suburbia with a decent salary is the only game to be explored honorably, and a good psychedelic shakeup is just what these kids need to wake up from the hypnotic sleepwalk!
I'm confused the tree-sitters lost, right?
And they pissed off or annoyed some people, right?
And these trees were planted by people, so there was no wilderness protection or global resource-use issue at stake here, right?
So, exactly what good did they do?
I'm all for more trees and less new "althetic centers" but, really what good has this specific action by these specific people done?
It almost seems -knowing nothing about the situation but what the article told- that these kids are getting a bit lazy. I mean, why go to the Forest and tree-sit where it would matter, when you can tree-sit right on Campus, right?
I've seen over-identification with the Campus and over-focus on "actions" with immediate "impact" take the wind from the sails of many a Student Environmentalist. This story appears to be a perfect example of the worst of this.
Does anyone know more? Is there anyone familiar with the specifics of this situation who can explode my "analysis" and enlighten us further?
Until then, Have Fun,
-matti.
matti,
Are you always this much of a smug, naysaying little twit? Do you have a functional spirit and/or soul? Are you some sort of blind automaton?
"kids are getting a bit lazy" to protest on campus rather than the woods... are you utterly mental? retarded even?
Your past few comments I've caught have me asking exactly that. Sounds like you are trying to hyperrationalize a very abstract struggle.
"Cal football fans were enraged over the delays to the training facility, "
So what about the rest of us who live here. Fuck Cal football fans. Assholes. As for the previous poster who clearly either works for Cal or is a football fan, you are totally out of touch. The entire City of Berkeley was with the Tree Sitters from the beginning and it was symbolic more than anything else. Ofcourse rich, white football fans would rather see a flat paved asphalt parking lot so they can park their friggin gas guzzling SUV's.
As someone who has grown up in Berkeley and lost a relative in the firestorm of 1991, it's not always so bad to cut down a little growth. As for the entire city being behind the tree sitters, as far as I could see, a small vocal minority supported them and the rest couldn't care less. It didn't impact most people's lives.
If you want to save the trees, go up to Mendocino or Humboldt and buy some land so no one can build on it or cut the trees down. It's a far more effective use of your time and effort than worrying about the UC's expansion plans. After all, it is their land.
"As for the previous poster who clearly either works for Cal or is a football fan"
Employee, no. Graduate, yes. From a point in time when we protested things that mattered. Like the University's economic support of South Africa.
Aah, i see ... you lost a relative in 91 so we should all just shut the hell up since YOU know whats best for us ... since you lost a relative in 91 !! This bizarre logic clearly doesnt hold up to any scrutiny. I suggest you read some of the excellent posts by ergoat and mojoray. There is no need to repeat it. Your solution to protecting and saving the environment (buy the land ?? wtf) is identical to that of cheney's as far as I can tell. Get a grip ...
Your answer betrays your ignorance on several levels. If you lived here as you claim, you'd know that the heavy vegetation in and amongst the houses of the Berkeley/Oakland hills led to the loss of life and property in what should have been a small brush fire.
As for the concept of land conservancy, do a little research. Start with The Nature Conservancy, American Land Conservancy or The Walden Woods Project. Most states have organizations looking for private owners to buy land and preserve it in its natural state. While I may not be able to preserve a historic site, 38 acres of scrub oak surrounding vital steelhead and salmon spawning areas will never be developed.
I apologize for offending you by making my contribution to the environmental effort by monetary means rather than by trespassing and flinging my own waste at people. I'll try and do better in the future.
Your vein of protest does not hold up to scrutiny. To hold up a brush fire that happened 17 years ago has no bearing to a memorial grove that posed no threat in a future fire. Yes, there would be fewer brush fires if every inch of land was paved over, because there would be no brush.
These people who sat in the trees and supported them on the ground did not have the resources to fund such a large land-buying proposal as you suggest, as what limited funds they do have is used to bail their friends and allies out of jails for being unjustly arrested be police for peacefully protesting.
In your argument, you imply that the preferable way of conservation is the passive act of donating money, as opposed to the brave personal act of being on the front lines protesting injustice.
Furthermore, the protest includes, and still continues to be about the native burial ground there, and the indigenous rights of the people to not have their ancestors disturbed in this way. Their beliefs also include that it is abhorrent to have the notion that land must be bought in such a way to be preserved, instead of mutually agreed to letting the forests stand.
As far as your point of allegedly flinging waste, I offer no justification excepting the police involved continually threatened, and endangered the lives of the peaceful protesters by aggressive, unwarranted tactics that could have sent people falling to their demise from their perches in the trees.
As much as I normally support most environmental actions, this article is deceptive in the extreme. The "grove of old-growth oaks" was planted by the university after the stadium was built this century, effectively making it a landscaping project. The "stadium neighbors" who are behind this whole, sad affair neglected to mention in their lawsuit that their homes are on the same faultline as the stadium. This was about a bunch of rich, privileged homeowners who were worried that increased traffic/student presence in their area would cause a dip in the resale value of their homes. The tree-sitters time could have been better spent fighting the continuing clear-cutting of Northern California's actual forests.
What a crap article! You can see what is valued. More gyms, less trees. When will the wind blow the other way?
Mother Earth and her Creator know what all of you have gone through for her and so do those of us who've lived beyond the ability to do what you've done. We thank you and bless you for your brave fight. Peace.
thanks for your bravery. while most americans sip latte while staring at laptops or teevee, you all got your bodies out where they do some real good!