Features

The People’s Park Hearings opened this week in Downieville, CA. Called by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the hearings were originally scheduled for Oakland, CA, but University of California lawyers called for a change of venue to the second smallest California county where digital access is extremely limited. However, the old Courthouse where the hearings are taking place does have indoor plumbing. The UC attorneys originally opted for the town of Loyalton because its name reminded them of the historic UC Loyalty Oath controversy, but the town lacked a large enough space for the hearings.

The central question before the UNEP panel is the destruction by UC of a park and urban ecosystem in the midst of extreme climate change. The hearing opened with questioning of Chancellor Carol Christ. Christ was asked if she felt the destruction of the park contradicted the public mission of UC. She responded that in the era of tight budgets the bottom line was paramount and that public-private partnerships called for a scorched earth policy. 

The panel asked if this policy seemed to Christ to indicate a corporate, not public, mission. She reminded the panel that the governing body of UC, the Regents, was almost entirely made up of corporate representatives, for example, Barclays Capital, CBRE, Microsoft, and various real estate and entertainment corporations. Christ pointed out that the UC mission may be public, but it is guided by the not so invisible hand of the market. 

The next line of questioning focused on the broken collaborative agreements between UC Berkeley and the People’s Park Project/Native Plant Forum. They were enumerated: the Letter of Agreement of May 8, 1978, the Letter of Understanding of January 5, 1979, and the Letter of August 31, 1979. Christ responded, “Please that was the 20^th century. The internet was not even invented!” 

In the same vein, Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin was called to the stand and asked why a secret agreement was forged between UC and the City with no public input and an alleged violation of the Brown Act. He clearly explained that in his quest for higher office he had to cater to the whims of UC and his campaign contributors in the development and real estate industry. He responded, “Even if it’s a bad deal for the City, why should the Brown Act stop me?” 

Next Arreguin was asked about violations of Berkeley ordinances Measures L and N, which mandate respectively that the City preserve and expand parks and that the City strive to get the best possible reimbursement from UC for city services. He replied, “Those ordinances are really old school 20^th century policies, better ignored than obeyed.” 

Ms. Christ was called back to the stand and queried about the several alternative sites available for building student housing. The questioning focused on the Ellsworth Parking Structure just over a block from People’s Park. The panel noted this earthquake unsafe structure was built in 1959-1961 under the 1958 building code and was suggested for demolition in 2016. The area of the parking structure would accommodate the housing proposed for People’s Park. When asked why favor an unsafe parking structure over a park, Christ responded adamantly, “It’s about the bottom line!” 

At this point the questioning got heated. One panelist asked, “Isn’t that rather Trumpian?” Another asked if the chancellor was just carrying on the work of Governor Ronald Reagan who had promised “to clean up the mess at Berkeley.” The UC lawyers suggested that Christ be silent on these questions. 

The panel is still soliciting more witnesses to come forward and promises a few surprises in the next hearing.