3 ms·

The group stated that enrollment should be capped until there's new housing. They also simultaneously argued that a housing project shouldn't move forward. Isn'

The group stated that enrollment should be capped until there's new housing. They also simultaneously argued that a housing project shouldn't move forward. Isn't that circular logic?

CogitoCogito 5y ago
From the article: -------------------------- Seligman also ordered the UC Board of Regents to void its 2018 approval of the Upper Hearst project and to decertify the supplemental environmental impact report. Cal must redo the SEIR to address certain issues, including how student enrollment increases have affected noise, housing and displacement in Berkeley, the judge ruled. ... But Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods and the city of Berkeley sued, stating the SEIR was inadequate and did not comply with CEQA, the state’s environmental law. The city complained that the university was trying to sneak a huge growth in student enrollment into the SEIR without examining its impacts and the costs to Berkeley for providing emergency services. In 2005, in a long-range development plan, UC Berkeley had said it only anticipated increasing student enrollment by 1,650 people by 2020. But as the state legislature reduced funding to the UC system, the Regents ordered certain campuses, including Cal, to add more students to bring in income. In 2019, UC Berkeley said enrollment had gone up by 11,285 students. In 2020-21, student enrollment was 42,035 students. Berkeley sued in 2019 but dropped the suit when the City Council voted on July 13 to enter into an $83 million agreement with UC Berkeley. Cal will pay Berkeley $4.1 million a year over the next 16 years for its use of city services in exchange for Berkeley dropping its opposition to the new 2021 long-range development plan and environmental impact report. That left Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods to pursue its case against UC Berkeley. “The city could have negotiated a much better deal for Berkeley had they waited for this judgment,” Bokovoy wrote in a press release. “As it is they sold taxpayers short with a ‘pennies on the dollar’ annual payment and no enforceable commitments to build housing and mitigate impacts.” -------------------------- > The group stated that enrollment should be capped until there's new housing. They also simultaneously argued that a housing project shouldn't move forward. Isn't that circular logic? I'm not sure what specific housing project you're referring to, but this article is entirely consistent. Even so, they could be arguing that Berkeley shouldn't expand without increased housing and they could also be against UC Berkeley's proposed solutions to increase housing (say due to NIMBYism). In that case, it would not be contradictory or circular. They would just be against UC Berkeley's proposed solutions. So no I really still would say their position is entirely consistent. They don't want Berkeley to change in certain ways. They think that UC Berkeley's increased enrolment requires those same certain changes. Hence they're against the enrolment. The logic makes sense and is frankly quite straight-forward.

The group stated that enrollment should be capped until there's new housing. They also simultaneously argued that a housing project shouldn't move forward. Isn't that circular logic?

CogitoCogito 5y ago

From the article: -------------------------- Seligman also ordered the UC Board of Regents to void its 2018 approval of the Upper Hearst project and to decertify the supplemental environmental impact report. Cal must redo the SEIR to address certain issues, including how student enrollment increases have affected noise, housing and displacement in Berkeley, the judge ruled. ... But Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods and the city of Berkeley sued, stating the SEIR was inadequate and did not comply with CEQA, the state’s environmental law. The city complained that the university was trying to sneak a huge growth in student enrollment into the SEIR without examining its impacts and the costs to Berkeley for providing emergency services. In 2005, in a long-range development plan, UC Berkeley had said it only anticipated increasing student enrollment by 1,650 people by 2020. But as the state legislature reduced funding to the UC system, the Regents ordered certain campuses, including Cal, to add more students to bring in income. In 2019, UC Berkeley said enrollment had gone up by 11,285 students. In 2020-21, student enrollment was 42,035 students. Berkeley sued in 2019 but dropped the suit when the City Council voted on July 13 to enter into an $83 million agreement with UC Berkeley. Cal will pay Berkeley $4.1 million a year over the next 16 years for its use of city services in exchange for Berkeley dropping its opposition to the new 2021 long-range development plan and environmental impact report. That left Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods to pursue its case against UC Berkeley. “The city could have negotiated a much better deal for Berkeley had they waited for this judgment,” Bokovoy wrote in a press release. “As it is they sold taxpayers short with a ‘pennies on the dollar’ annual payment and no enforceable commitments to build housing and mitigate impacts.” -------------------------- > The group stated that enrollment should be capped until there's new housing. They also simultaneously argued that a housing project shouldn't move forward. Isn't that circular logic? I'm not sure what specific housing project you're referring to, but this article is entirely consistent. Even so, they could be arguing that Berkeley shouldn't expand without increased housing and they could also be against UC Berkeley's proposed solutions to increase housing (say due to NIMBYism). In that case, it would not be contradictory or circular. They would just be against UC Berkeley's proposed solutions. So no I really still would say their position is entirely consistent. They don't want Berkeley to change in certain ways. They think that UC Berkeley's increased enrolment requires those same certain changes. Hence they're against the enrolment. The logic makes sense and is frankly quite straight-forward.