Opinion

Here is an instant critique of the UC-city settlement. While one should be humbled by Theodore Roosevelt’s dictum that it is not the critic who counts, but the man in the arena, in a democracy critics (especially those who volunteered to participate but were excluded from the arena) have an obligation to speak up. While the passage of time may bring greater perspective, at the moment one asks if the city is worse off with this settlement than if they had never filed the CEQA lawsuit in the first place. T he city has limited its future environmental and fiscal options notwithstanding changes in the law—such as the Cal State Monterey Bay case pending before the California Supreme Court that could give the city a CEQA opportunity to exact full mitigation for UC’s impacts—and obtained little prerogative or improvement in return. -more-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Today we are pleased to offer for your information a guest editorial, author unknown. It’s a cogent, well-written summary of why the City of Berkeley needs an adequate environmental impact report from the University of California before the university moves forward with its relentless desire to radically change the face of our city between now and 2020. Nothing’s changed—the points made in this piece, placed on the city’s website in February when the lawsuit was filed under the title “Fact Sheet,” are still valid. -more-