Public Comment

An analysis of the nonfactual presentation in UC Berkeley’s flyer “A Renewed People’s Park for All” reveals the irrationality of the People’s Park project and the venality of UCB administration in pursuing it. This is amplified by the undercutting of park proponents’ win in the State Court of Appeal by AB 1307 and its subsequent impact on the recent State Supreme Court decision reversing that win. 

Moreover, an immediate concern is whether UC has done an adequate archeological investigation of the park. Given a recent official filing with the Northwest Information Center of the State Office of Historic Preservation showing evidence of Native American artifacts in or near the park, UC should present information to the public describing what steps it has taken to ascertain it will not continue its long history of destruction of historic Native sites, graves and objects. 

AB 1307 was nothing more than a sweetheart, backroom deal concocted by Assemblyperson Buffy Wicks. She had absolutely no contact with the plaintiffs in the court case or with any park proponents in the district she purportedly represents. There were no legislative committee hearings to air arguments on the bill, either pro or con. The bill can only be described as a piece of special interest legislation with the special interest being none other than UC. 

This outcome is disappointing because the nonprofit, community-based organizations were only asking for a public process under the California Environmental Quality Act. The Court of Appeal clearly saw that UC pursued a private process in determining it had no alternative other than to build on People’s Park. Our groups hired legal representation at great expense to advocate for transparency from UC. They played by the rules, and when UC did not like the outcome, it got the rules changed. 

This begs the question - Is the project about student housing or about destroying the park? This is particularly evident when the millions of wasted dollars of public funds are considered due to delays, legal and police costs, and the shipping container wall with razor wire. 

In order to meet its housing goal, UCB has claimed that it wants to build as much student housing as soon as possible. However, as an indication of its outrageously poor planning to reach the goal, UCB chose People’s Park as Housing Project #2 and then admitted early on that it would certainly experience delays due to the controversial nature of the project. Anchor House, Housing Project # 1, is nearly completed. If any of the many alternative sites had been chosen for Housing Project #2, it would likewise be nearly complete. 

Cal claims extensive public engagement and input on the project. However, it was only earlier this year that teach-ins were held on campus that included student groups, faculty and community groups that provided an open and balanced analysis of what it would mean to destroy People’s Park. In 2021, People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group circulated an Open Letter with nearly 150 signatures that includes Berkeley residents, UCB professors, three former Berkeley mayors, three former Berkeley city councilmembers, many former Berkeley commissioners, Cal alumni and students, attorneys, architects, historians and many others who are concerned about the threatened destruction of People’s Park. Their representative views were never considered by campus administration. 

Additionally, several student groups support preservation of People’s Park - Pay Your Workers Campaign, Historic Preservation Club, Cal ACLU, and Suitcase Clinic. Add to that, two resolutions from the ASUC opposing destruction of the park, the Berkeley Faculty Association’s questioning of the project, and the many editorials in support of the park in the Daily Cal. Support has also come from the country’s leading preservation organization - The National Trust for Historic Preservation. 

Cal touts that 1.7 acres of the park would remain open space after development. However, the increasingly densely populated Southside needs probably at least three times the acreage of People’s Park to meet urban green space standards at the international, national, state or city level. Stripping much-needed open space from students and the community is particularly perverse because it is unnecessary. 

Cal states it has “secured housing vouchers from the City of Berkeley for this project” neglecting to explain that housing vouchers come from the federal Housing and Urban Development voucher program. Vouchers would only be available if UC completed an environmental impact report in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, a requirement UC refused for its original supportive housing project. Since UC has destroyed a site on the National Register of Historic Places, this will likely be a major deterrent for any potential nonprofit housing developer. 

Not only are the proposed buildings out-of-keeping with the area, they overshadow a National Landmark (Bernard Maybeck’s First Church), a building by famed architect Julia Morgan, the Anna Head complex by the founding member of Berkeley’s Ratcliff architectural dynasty, and many other historic structures that surround People’s Park. 

The university claims to honor the historic importance of the park but does so by destroying a place that is an official city landmark, recognized by the State Historic Resources Commission. And People's Park is also listed on the federal government's National Register of Historic Places as a site of such national importance that it's worthy of preservation. So UC's idea of honoring this historic place is to destroy it. 

Many who consider themselves part of the Cal family honor fact-based research and support social justice. We think of these values as having been strengthened by experiences at Berkeley. Therefore, it pains most Cal-affiliated people when UC Berkeley behaves like a greedy and abusive corporation without a conscience. 

Corporations can make expensive miscalculations, e.g., Ford’s Edsel. UC campuses likewise have made costly planning errors, e.g., UCSB’s “Dormzilla.” However, both of these mistakes were recognized and the projects were terminated. Harm only comes when a bad decision is stubbornly sustained at the cost of institutional integrity.