Features

In February the City filed a lawsuit against the university over its Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) and its meaningless environmental impact report (EIR). The university plans to expand by 4000 full-time students (adding to Berkeley’s housing problems), 3500 faculty, staff, and visitors (adding to Berkeley’s traffic and parking problems), and 2.2 million square feet (built who-knows-where and creating who-knows-what problems). The city stated, correctly, that the LRDP/EIR “falls far short of providing adequate information, analysis, or mitigations for the tremendous burden this growth will place on our city.”  

The lawsuit, considered eminently winnable (and if so, free), was and is lauded by most informed observers, including city staff, local residents, the Sierra Club, students, and many others concerned about urban environmental degradation and fiscal impacts. The city set aside about $250,000 for the lawsuit, less than 1/1000 of one year’s city budget, and about 1/50 of the monetary cost of the university’s current annual unmitigated damages to the city.  

Since then the city, guided by the mayor, has been working on a “negotiated settlement” behind closed doors. Last time this happened, in 1990, a toothless, unenforceable backroom deal emerged and was enacted over citizen objections. That agreement gave a pittance to the city. Its only significant beneficial element was a promise by the university to reduce enrollment; instead UC promptly increased enrollment. 

This time, we hope the process will be a more democratic one. But we’re not off to a good start. It appears that the city attorney, unbeknownst to the mayor or the City Council, signed a confidentiality agreement under which UC must now give the council “permission” to release the settlement to the public, which is required for a transparent, democratic decision on this critical matter. Even though the university is apparently arrogant enough to withhold such permission, the City Council can and should inform UC that if permission is not forthcoming, the lawsuit will proceed. If the mayor, who publicly promised that there would be open discussion of the agreement before it is finalized, was serious about that promise, that is what the council will do.  

Meanwhile, Councilmember Wozniak, UC’s most ardent apologist, has stated that those who want public input into this process are “a few citizens who want to micromanage everything and look over our shoulders.” Mr. Wozniak lives securely outside the range of UC impacts, both existing and LRDP-related. Others can’t be so sanguine: more than 300 people and organizations wrote letters of concern about the LRDP, and 300 people voiced their concerns in public hearings. Over 20,000 Berkeleyans are directly impacted by UC detriments (not including those with tax impacts alone). Far fewer people are impacted by the “creeks” problem, but the City Council immediately set up a task force with a $100,000 budget to address that issue. Why is the city so much less concerned about the well-being of those who live close to the university, I wonder. 

Blind speculation about whether the city and/or mayor negotiated vigorously enough, or extracted a “good deal” from the overempowered UC bully, is less important than what happens next. Which is that the citizens—and yes, especially those most impacted and most knowledgeable—should be the ones to judge whether the proposed deal mitigates the damages of the LRDP enough to justify dropping the lawsuit. And for the citizens to make that decision, they must see the proposed settlement, have time to digest it, and have yet more time to let the City Council know their concerns. Will this occur, or do we live in a sham democracy in which elected officials hatch deals in the dark and only pretend to respond to the voices of the people? What occurs now will reveal the council’s true colors. 

Sharon Hudson is a political observer interested in land use issues. She has lived within five blocks of the university for 33 years. 

K