Certainly, it's tempting to attribute all the problems festering at the oak grove to the tree-sitters' stubbornness and disillusion, but it's also important to make the distinction between the battle in court and the battle among the branches. While contention in the former is actually grounded on rationale, the latter is a misguided display of unreasonable resistance.
Let's start with the legal proceedings. It's a tale that never had to be told if the university had toned down its arrogance in the first place by including the greater community while making plans for the athletic center. The city council's legitimate concerns about the project's adherence to environmental regulations and seismic safety could have been easily resolved through communication and compromise.
Instead, the judicial saga began. While the city's eventual refusal to appeal the case is commendable, the same can't be said about the other plaintiffs. The prolonging of the legal process by the California Oak Foundation and Panoramic Hill Association is unnecessary as it's clear the lower court took ample time to review the construction's logistics, rendering a well-informed decision after reviewing all the evidence. These two parties need to accept the ruling and realize that their continual futile appeals only serve to enlarge their attorneys' price tag.