Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Tree Sitters Prepare for Students Return
After 10 months of occupying in 100-foot high redwood trees, Tree Sitters at UCSC's Science Hill are ready for students to return for school. In the past, UCSC has cut down trees while students are away, so the beginning of fall quarter on September 20th may mean that the UCSC Tree Sit last until its anniversary on November 7th.
After watching the destruction of the Memorial Oak Grove at Berkeley last weekend, the Tree Sitters at UCSC are on guard for this last week of summer. "It was hard to see those oaks get cut," said Tree Sitter Raven, "especially knowing that it could happen here."
The UCSC Tree Sitters say that their presence is more important than ever since the Santa Cruz City Council settled their lawsuit with the University. The settlement gives the City Council's blessing for UCSC to begin the first phase of their construction plan that will eventually destroy 120 acres of forest and add at least 4,500 new students to the area. The first building slated for construction is the Biomedical Sciences Facility and the Tree Sitters are occupying the place where it is to be built.
UCSC Tree Sitters have taken a stand against construction before it begins. Precious watershed regions, unique manzanita groves and hundred-year old redwood forests will be destroyed by the University's unfettered construction. The homes of such rare native animals as the burrowing owl and the endangered red-legged frog will be devastated. The University's plan sacrifices the unique ecosystems, as well as the highly esteemed liberal arts education that attracts many people to Santa Cruz. Following the trend of privatizing public universities, current students are paying more for education and receiving less.
Three clusters of redwoods have been inhabited since November 7, 2007, when over 500 students, alumni, and community members rallied in opposition to the University's plans. Other tree sits have been added, using the same technique of carefully securing pre-built platforms to several redwoods without harming the trees. Tree sitters have continued their vigil through police attacks, winter storms, ninety-mile an hour winds and the long days of summer.
The UCSC Tree Sitters say that their presence is more important than ever since the Santa Cruz City Council settled their lawsuit with the University. The settlement gives the City Council's blessing for UCSC to begin the first phase of their construction plan that will eventually destroy 120 acres of forest and add at least 4,500 new students to the area. The first building slated for construction is the Biomedical Sciences Facility and the Tree Sitters are occupying the place where it is to be built.
UCSC Tree Sitters have taken a stand against construction before it begins. Precious watershed regions, unique manzanita groves and hundred-year old redwood forests will be destroyed by the University's unfettered construction. The homes of such rare native animals as the burrowing owl and the endangered red-legged frog will be devastated. The University's plan sacrifices the unique ecosystems, as well as the highly esteemed liberal arts education that attracts many people to Santa Cruz. Following the trend of privatizing public universities, current students are paying more for education and receiving less.
Three clusters of redwoods have been inhabited since November 7, 2007, when over 500 students, alumni, and community members rallied in opposition to the University's plans. Other tree sits have been added, using the same technique of carefully securing pre-built platforms to several redwoods without harming the trees. Tree sitters have continued their vigil through police attacks, winter storms, ninety-mile an hour winds and the long days of summer.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Can you all clarify the official schedule for that? The clearing of upper campus where that trailer park is, and beyond the eastern edge of campus is supposed to be in a year or more. When have they discussed starting the biomedical building? A different type of strategy is involved than at the Berkeley campus, because it is the upper campus intact forest that some people are concerned about, while a different audience is concerned about animal rights and anti-technology, or the opposition to any expansion by Santa Cruz homeowners who dislike more population in town.
Please read this comment from http://humboldtforestdefense.blogspot.com/2008/06/berkeley-tree-sitters-still-aloft-after.html
about the Oaks campaign, it may be relevent to the LRDP action.
Above all, be peaceful and vigilent in your cause.
Jeff Muskrat
Thank you Emmagirl. The "cause" for Berkeley is to protect Greenspace. It is getting harder to find these areas in the city. The underlying cause is to honor both Native Americans and WWI Vets by protecting sacred space. I cannot speak for everyone involved with the Oaks campaign so I'm not sure why someone would say it was never about the trees.
Yes, the protestors ARE tresspassing. That is the action. It is a form of dissent protected by freedom of speech. This was occurring as the UC was being challenged in court, the trees would have been cut before the verdict if the sitters were not up there. Sometimes, action needs to be taken immediately.
The UCPD has every right not to feed them. However, I do not feel that the UC, a semi-public(quasi-public) institution, has the right to prevent food from the community(usually the grannies) from going up into the trees. No one ever expected the UC to buy the sitters food. I also feel that the UCPD should be less violent towards supporters on the ground, such as the grannies who were pummeled weekly to the ground by the "blue meanies".
It is hard for someone outside of the action/situation to understand why the protestors(and police) are acting the way they are. The vibe of the police and protestors has been affected by violence and aggression, from the UCPD as well as a select few protestors. These violent protestors are not a part of the Oaks action, beleieve it or not, spies and disruptors were used by the UC to give the Oaks campaign a negative public image. This is apparent to any long-time protestor, and if you look at the campaign from the beginning, you can see how a peaceful, non-violent and community supported action can quite literally go down the tubes.
Did you know:
-The City of Berkeley, along with the Panoramic Hills Assoc. and the Oaks Campaign, legally opposed the training center.
-The training center is actually a retrofit for an aging stadium(WWI Memorial Stadium). The UC's plan is to sink the center into the earth in front of the stadium, which happened to be the location of the WWI Memorial Oak Grove. The stadium and the Oak grove are over the active Hayward faultline. I personally saw the faultline underground, and I wouldn't attend any future Cal games at that location, if I were you. I feel the karma involved from the UC's treatment of the protestors opens the door for a big quake, possibly(but hopefully not) during a game in the near future. Watch for it...
-The UC was hiding it's intentions of putting a "bandaid" on the stadium by saying that was the only feasible location for the training center. This made the UC look dishonest, because THEY ARE! The training center was a retrofit from the beginning, there are multiple locations available to accomodate the athletes. Can't they walk a few more feet?
-The City council of Berkeley was a major supporter of the acion. The Berkeley Police(not the UCPD) were also supportive of us.
Emma, why do you think that the sitters and protestors didn't have money, or jobs, or something else to do? Many were/are students of UC Berkeley. I sat with them for more than a week. The vibe in the trees was peaceful and calm as we watched the craziness unfold on the ground. Yes, there are a considerable amount of houseless people on the ground, many from People's Park. The Oaks supporters helped them by giving them food. Eventually, the ground became a houseless camp. I am not opposed to the houseless, and I feel that many of the houseless helped the Oaks. I also feel that was the downfall of the campaign in which the mentally unstable houseless gave the Oak's campaign a bad public image.
The so called "unstable" portion of the ground camp I feel was put in place there by the campus to negatively affect the campaign's public image. The "unstable" element also created issues for organizers who were having enough trouble from the UCPD. I personally watched members of the unstable element converse with UCPD officers, and return to the ground camp to start a fight. It is hard for organizers to ask someone to leave an action that is opposing heirarchy and oppression. Usually, we would just try to "vibe" them out. Most people would have left after the larger group distanced themselves from them, the "unstable" element. Remember, these disruptors were there to cause problems, and the UCPD would watch and laugh as peaceful, non-violent protestors were verbally and physically attacked by them. The UCPD ignored them, but tackled us if we got too close to the fence.
I don't expect you to agree with our campaign, you saw the worst part of it, after the Oaks were cut, the spirit of the organizers was broken(ie. Running Wolf), and comunity support waned as the Oaks Campaign's image was tarnished by disruptors and unstable people. But I hope you understand that our convictions were strong and that it was our right to stand up to the UC, an institution that has historically made it's name from killing others(UC Berkeley made "the bomb" and is still very active in military weapons development, especially nuclear based weapons.)
I hope that if you are compelled to stand up for what you believe in, that you will learn a lesson from the Oaks. If a child in the street is about to get nailed by a car, will you wait for the parents or cops to act, or will you rise up and act with your heart? Sometimes we cannot depend on the system to protect our interests. Sometimes, we need to take matters into our own hands proactively, not reactively. Peacefully and non-violently.
September 11, 2008 9:14 AM
about the Oaks campaign, it may be relevent to the LRDP action.
Above all, be peaceful and vigilent in your cause.
Jeff Muskrat
Thank you Emmagirl. The "cause" for Berkeley is to protect Greenspace. It is getting harder to find these areas in the city. The underlying cause is to honor both Native Americans and WWI Vets by protecting sacred space. I cannot speak for everyone involved with the Oaks campaign so I'm not sure why someone would say it was never about the trees.
Yes, the protestors ARE tresspassing. That is the action. It is a form of dissent protected by freedom of speech. This was occurring as the UC was being challenged in court, the trees would have been cut before the verdict if the sitters were not up there. Sometimes, action needs to be taken immediately.
The UCPD has every right not to feed them. However, I do not feel that the UC, a semi-public(quasi-public) institution, has the right to prevent food from the community(usually the grannies) from going up into the trees. No one ever expected the UC to buy the sitters food. I also feel that the UCPD should be less violent towards supporters on the ground, such as the grannies who were pummeled weekly to the ground by the "blue meanies".
It is hard for someone outside of the action/situation to understand why the protestors(and police) are acting the way they are. The vibe of the police and protestors has been affected by violence and aggression, from the UCPD as well as a select few protestors. These violent protestors are not a part of the Oaks action, beleieve it or not, spies and disruptors were used by the UC to give the Oaks campaign a negative public image. This is apparent to any long-time protestor, and if you look at the campaign from the beginning, you can see how a peaceful, non-violent and community supported action can quite literally go down the tubes.
Did you know:
-The City of Berkeley, along with the Panoramic Hills Assoc. and the Oaks Campaign, legally opposed the training center.
-The training center is actually a retrofit for an aging stadium(WWI Memorial Stadium). The UC's plan is to sink the center into the earth in front of the stadium, which happened to be the location of the WWI Memorial Oak Grove. The stadium and the Oak grove are over the active Hayward faultline. I personally saw the faultline underground, and I wouldn't attend any future Cal games at that location, if I were you. I feel the karma involved from the UC's treatment of the protestors opens the door for a big quake, possibly(but hopefully not) during a game in the near future. Watch for it...
-The UC was hiding it's intentions of putting a "bandaid" on the stadium by saying that was the only feasible location for the training center. This made the UC look dishonest, because THEY ARE! The training center was a retrofit from the beginning, there are multiple locations available to accomodate the athletes. Can't they walk a few more feet?
-The City council of Berkeley was a major supporter of the acion. The Berkeley Police(not the UCPD) were also supportive of us.
Emma, why do you think that the sitters and protestors didn't have money, or jobs, or something else to do? Many were/are students of UC Berkeley. I sat with them for more than a week. The vibe in the trees was peaceful and calm as we watched the craziness unfold on the ground. Yes, there are a considerable amount of houseless people on the ground, many from People's Park. The Oaks supporters helped them by giving them food. Eventually, the ground became a houseless camp. I am not opposed to the houseless, and I feel that many of the houseless helped the Oaks. I also feel that was the downfall of the campaign in which the mentally unstable houseless gave the Oak's campaign a bad public image.
The so called "unstable" portion of the ground camp I feel was put in place there by the campus to negatively affect the campaign's public image. The "unstable" element also created issues for organizers who were having enough trouble from the UCPD. I personally watched members of the unstable element converse with UCPD officers, and return to the ground camp to start a fight. It is hard for organizers to ask someone to leave an action that is opposing heirarchy and oppression. Usually, we would just try to "vibe" them out. Most people would have left after the larger group distanced themselves from them, the "unstable" element. Remember, these disruptors were there to cause problems, and the UCPD would watch and laugh as peaceful, non-violent protestors were verbally and physically attacked by them. The UCPD ignored them, but tackled us if we got too close to the fence.
I don't expect you to agree with our campaign, you saw the worst part of it, after the Oaks were cut, the spirit of the organizers was broken(ie. Running Wolf), and comunity support waned as the Oaks Campaign's image was tarnished by disruptors and unstable people. But I hope you understand that our convictions were strong and that it was our right to stand up to the UC, an institution that has historically made it's name from killing others(UC Berkeley made "the bomb" and is still very active in military weapons development, especially nuclear based weapons.)
I hope that if you are compelled to stand up for what you believe in, that you will learn a lesson from the Oaks. If a child in the street is about to get nailed by a car, will you wait for the parents or cops to act, or will you rise up and act with your heart? Sometimes we cannot depend on the system to protect our interests. Sometimes, we need to take matters into our own hands proactively, not reactively. Peacefully and non-violently.
September 11, 2008 9:14 AM
For more information:
http://humboldtforestdefense.blogspot.com/...
seeing this thing through to an entire year is a serious statement to the uc showing them who really has the power. i see it more important to focus on the significance of more privately owned research facilities involved with the campus than the ecological impact of the lrdp. and i will fucking straight fight anyone who disagrees. come to my office and see what's up motherfuckers
There is no official timeline for building on the trailer park, but parkies report that the UC has refused to allow two new trailers into the park this year, suggesting that they are going to slowly lower the trailer park population over the next few years before building. There is a five year building plan, and the development of the trailer park is not on it, but I don't know how set in stone that is.
The Biomedical Sciences building is slated to be the next construction project, the plans were finished and everything was in place to build last year when the city filed their lawsuit and the tree sit went up. In the city's lawsuit settlement, one of the terms as that the parties to the lawsuit will not oppose the building of the Biomed building.
For background info, see
http//:http://www.lrdpresistance.org
http//:http://www.stopucsc.org
http://www.ucsc.edu/planning_2020/
The Biomedical Sciences building is slated to be the next construction project, the plans were finished and everything was in place to build last year when the city filed their lawsuit and the tree sit went up. In the city's lawsuit settlement, one of the terms as that the parties to the lawsuit will not oppose the building of the Biomed building.
For background info, see
http//:http://www.lrdpresistance.org
http//:http://www.stopucsc.org
http://www.ucsc.edu/planning_2020/
Can anybody clarify the comment about the 2 trailers not being allowed? Are there 2 vacant spaces, or did the 2 trailers not pass safety inspection?
Plans for the Biomedical Building are actually not completed yet, although basic plans have been set in stone for a while. You're right though, it is the next building going up, but groundbreaking will most likely be January.
I don't know who submitted this comment, but it was not me and as far as I know I am the only Mike Rotkin in the United States. Please remove this slanderous misrepresentation.
Mike Rotkn
Mike Rotkn
I did not write this and I have no idea who did and I completely disavow it (even though I am not sure exactly what the person is trying to have me say). Mike Rotkin
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$220.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network