Berkeley Tree Sitters Or How The University Nearly Managed To Hang Itself From The Highest Tree

"Shem" is perched about half-way up one of the medium size trees, in the now infamous grove next to UC  Berkeley Memorial Stadium, high above the Berkeley flats.  He is shouting how U.C. police attacked him last week, how they tried to get him to come down, and in his words-

"...attacked me, grabbing at my leg... coming at me, saying they were going to kill me!"

While he rants to the few us who are actually listening, about a dozen of UC's finest are milling on the sidewalk just below him.  They look by turns, bored and annoyed.  The cops easily outnumber the few passersby who stop to listen to Shem for a minute or two before moving on.  A cbs5 news team has just arrived, and aside from one other reporter taking notes and shouting questions to Shem, there are no other news crews in sight. 

By now, most of you might be familiar with the Berkeley tree-sitters.  For those who aren't- a little history.

About 18 months ago, the Berkeley community became aware of the University's plan to cut down several of the large coastal oaks and redwoods in a grove just west of Memorial Stadium, in order to build a multi-million dollar athletic training center.  A group of activists took matters into their own hands, climbed the trees and created tree-top platforms where they have remained ever since.  Questions were asked, and it was alleged the University did not seek the proper environmental impact reports and earthquake studies before commencing with the project and so it wound up in court with a judge issuing a temporary injunction against cutting any trees. 

Meanwhile, the University pretty much left the activists alone, and in the ensuing months, the tree-sitters created a system of pulleys, ropes and levers in which to climb, hang and otherwise maneuver themselves presumably from tree to tree.  Bay Area baby boomers will recall the original 80s tree sitters, who perched up in the tree-tops in Eureka and Humboldt to prevent the logging old growth redwoods.  It is not a new practice.

A young man walking up Piedmont, stops and stares up at Shem, and we ask him if he is a student.  He is Daniel Brown working on his PhD in Economics, and he is not too thrilled with the tree sitters.  He has seen them for months, and says that the bottom line is, it's U.C. property-

"The UC officials are in a difficult situation, but they'll have to deal with it.  It won't be an easy solution, but you can't leave people up in the trees." 

Well, the University began to "deal with it" just last week.  Anticipating a legal end to the injunction, they hired some arborists, and they, and UC police officers, began to dismantle the pulley and rope infrastructure.  Things got nasty, and one tree sitter bit an arborist, and she was forcibly removed and detained. Urine was thrown at the arborists and police officers.  Things got very nasty.

The reporter beside me shouts up to Shem asking him how much food and water they have left.  He says he doesn't want to share that information.  UC officials have cut off sustenance from the ground, only allowing first aid supplies.  Another tree-sitter, "Bird" says they are fearful of being attacked-

"We don't want to stay up here another day.  It's a miracle that no one's dead." 

Indeed. One wonders how the University would allow anyone to climb the trees, let alone remain there for all these months, especially in this litigious age.  Protests are nothing new in Berkeley, but the 60s are long over.  One thinks that if University officials had never allowed this to happen in the first place- after all it is University property- they would not be in this pickle today.

Instead, there are two chain link fences that surround the grove, both topped with barbed wire.  A long line of police barricades have been set up along Piedmont Avenue, barring any pedestrians on the grove side.  Several police officers who look as if they'd rather be doing anything but this, stand guard.  One of them whips out a video camera and points it at us.  We in turn, point our camera back at him.  Is this Berkeley protest, 21st century-style?

Another young man standing by says they videotape him all the time. He is Nathan Pitts, a local supporter.  He says he wasn't always a supporter, but the UC tactics have made him one.  He lives in the area and would often walk by and chat with the tree-sitters.  After awhile, one police officer began to harass him, saying if he didn't turn over his ID, he would go to jail.   Nathan contends he did nothing wrong, and that the police have a file on him, and on everyone else who hangs around. He says the tree sitters are committed, and they will stay in the trees until they are saved.

"If the school had done it the proper way [environmental impact & earthquake reports], this wouldn't have happened, because they never would've gotten legal permission to cut the trees."

Nathan may be a tad optimistic. 

On Thursday, the judge in the case, Barbara Miller of the Alameda Superior Court, ruled that the trees cannot be cut until the University can prove how they will deal with the traffic and noise that would result from the construction, and how the project would not violate state earthquake safety laws.  One presumes that by now, the University will have had enough time to get their legal ducks in a row in order to make the case to cut.  One hopes they have also figured out a way to end this mess without anyone getting hurt.

Stay tuned!

Photo album:

Created with Admarket's flickrSLiDR.

Comments

[Nathan Pitts]

Did I say such choppy sentence?

To clarify:

If the school truely believes it can win this court case, if all it has to do is tweak 2 things in its plans like it claims.... then why didn't they just do that in the first place a year and half ago? Logically, when you study the quandary, it is fairly obvious the school isn't so sure it can beat this.

It would have prevented a year and a half long court case, with a possible appeal that will go another year perhaps.

It would have saved itself the bad pr (including recently arresting a member of the AG's office for NOT running over protesters with her own SUV, the ongoing arguments behind closed doors with the DA's office, the violent manner in which tree sitters were extracted)....

And it would have saved itself half a million to a million dollars (the number is unclear) spent on trying to deal with the protesters.

I also believe the current "police state" condition at the Oak Grove has less to do with that actual grove itself, and rather is a scare tactic to discourage people from Tree Sitting for the other projects that make up the schools expansion plan. The BP building in particular is going to be a magnet for Tree Sitters and protesters on the ground.

The issue of cameras is a tricky one. Out of all the photos and videos they take of people, the cops have refused to hand over even one piece of recorded evidence to any protester's lawyers - and more controversially, the DA's office has been repeatedly denied access to the UCB-PD's records.

As for cameras wielded by protesters - I hated the idea of being Brother Eye... until I was falsely arrested, like so many others, by a cop with a grudge. Held in 2 days for something I didn't do. Now I always have a camera on my to record them, just as they record us. By taking periodical camera sweeps of the area, it ensures an accurate account of the protest is being taken, to lessen the chances of cops can't creating bogus charges. My camera sweeps also include surreptitious interviews, some of which got officers reassigned off the Tree Sit beat for a while.

Cameras and Youtube, when used correctly can give a protester strategic advantage, especially since cops cannot legally repeat that strategy of using "new media" outlets such as the following:

http://www.youtube.com/user/Oaks4Peace