New Search
2 <br /> of trees was high. Councilwoman Laurie Swanson- Gribskov decided to put together a <br /> small committee from those in attendance who seemed most experienced with forestry. A <br /> few other volunteers -- myself among them - -were included. That committee would then <br /> examine the trees in detail and report back to those interested at a future meeting. This <br /> group was not in any way an official committee; its manner of selection was impromptu, <br /> and its task was to examine and report, not to make any decision on the fate of the trees. <br /> Determining the Fate of the Trees <br /> It is the city's responsibility, and no one else's, to determine what trees are hazardous and to <br /> remove them in a timely manner. The charge of this ad hoc group - -to examine the trees and <br /> report back to a larger meeting- -makes it seem as if the group had the power to decide which <br /> trees should be cut. However, it was explained that it does not - -and it should not. <br /> The group contained several people with training that would help them give informed opinions. It <br /> would seem that science ought to prevail: what are the facts? Given them, the decision should be <br /> obvious, one would think. <br /> However, in this situation, which is not controlled like an experiment, (as one of the scientists in <br /> the group pointed out to me), there is only interpretation. The group was given sheets on which <br /> to record their individual comments about each specific tree. During the course of examining <br /> these trees, interpretations ran the gamut. Questions of all kinds were raised, and there were <br /> many disagreements among members of the group who had expertise of one kind or another <br /> about trees. As a professor of literature, I do not have expertise about the health of trees. I <br /> recognize this human process of interpretation, however. Interpretation is valuable, and indeed <br /> leads to a kind of knowledge that is what we most often live with and act with, a communal <br /> agreement that is cultural, not scientific. However, interpretation is also interminable. <br /> After four centuries, the interpretations of Hamlet now fill several shelves in major libraries <br /> without resolving the question of Hamlet's doubt. The debate over the trees is Hamlet -like. It <br /> cannot be resolved by a consensus of citizens. It can only be resolved by using the best guidelines <br /> available to urban foresters and the recognized professional practices of urban forestry in cities all <br /> over the country. <br /> But that has already been done. The city has a list of 18 trees, and that list was produced by a <br /> decision - making process of the city's experts. The process was already deeply affected by the <br /> potential objections of tree lovers. (Not only by the headline - making tree incidents. Tree activists <br /> have made their feelings known in no uncertain terms - -in frequent phone calls to Councilwoman <br /> Swanson- Gribskov, for example, over the past year.) No ad hoc group of citizens, however <br /> brainy and committed, can do better than the decision - making already undertaken by the city, nor <br /> should they try. The city should thank the group for its willingness to donate time and its evident <br /> interest; the city should continue to use informed members of the citizenry as consultants in its <br /> processes, but the city should not let its decision be changed by such a group. This would <br />