Justice’s dissent outlines way forward in dispute over increasing Berkeley enrollment

I have read a number of the Daily Journal's recent articles regarding the dispute between Save Berkeley's Neighborhood and the University of California. (E.g., most recently, "Supreme Court refuses to lift limits on UC Berkeley's enrollment," March 4.) The articles present what each party's arguments are, but appear to be giving them equal weight.

As a resident of Berkeley, I do not see the two sides as equal. The prominence of UC Berkeley came from the distinguished quality of education made available to the talented students, who are future leaders of the world. In contrast, the Save Berkeley's Neighborhoods -- the local neighborhood group opposed to the university's plan to admit additional incoming students -- is only a beneficiary of UC Berkeley's excellence.

As to availability of low-rent housing, it is true that the beauty of the UC Berkeley campus and the prosperity of the neighborhood have caused the rent to rise considerably. The university is building low-cost housing for the students, however, and the city of Berkeley has rent-control ordinances.

Given the competitive market as it is, the city of Berkeley more recently allowed many high-rise buildings to be built -- and even housing for the homeless. It is not necessary or proper for the merchants in the neighborhood to displace the gifted students at UC Berkeley or hinder their education.

In any case, Justice Goodwin Liu has explained to us all as to how the case should proceed. In his March 3 dissent from the California Supreme Court's decision to deny a stay of a lower court ruling that would cap the university's enrollment. I encourage all Daily Journal readers to review Justice Liu's dissent.

-- John Hsu

Berkeley