New Search
3 <br /> constitute, in fact, a great misuse of the talent and commitment the group has to offer. It would <br /> be using a process governed by politics to make decisions about hazardous trees -- decisions that <br /> should be kept as distant from politics as possible, that should be insulated from flare -ups of <br /> emotion - -and that even so will still be affected by political considerations. <br /> Therefore the charge to the group was misleading and perhaps (with the best of will), misguided. <br /> Members of the group can usefully convey in the future their conviction that the city wants to <br /> work with the public, and that the city has a difficult situation in managing the Hendricks Park <br /> trees: that a certain number of the trees do seem to be dying, rotting, diseased, and dangerous, <br /> even though most of them look beautiful and alive. Conditions around the shelter are not good <br /> for fir trees, and members of the group can report that. <br /> Members of the group should refuse to make recommendations about any of these trees already <br /> designated as potentially hazardous. They must, alas, be removed. <br /> Why Remove Hazardous Trees? <br /> The fact that some members of the group suggested that the trees should not be removed even <br /> though found to be hazardous alarms me. I own a house directly below some of the hazardous <br /> trees. Most of the trees above my house are perfectly safe. These forest giants are precisely what <br /> I like about the house, and t do not want any trees to be cut unless they must be. But I find it <br /> incredible that anyone would suggest trees in a park should be left standing for a while longer <br /> once they've been determined to be hazardous. I do not believe this group should allow itself in <br /> any way to force an assumption of risk by someone who does not wish to assume that risk <br /> themselves. Even delaying the removal of these trees that have been found to be hazardous <br /> constitutes a forced assumption of risk. <br /> What Next? <br /> The group had one thing in common: an interest in promoting the growth of healthy, beautiful <br /> trees and in protecting the trees we already have. It's clear that part of what has endangered the <br /> fir trees in Hendricks Park has been the mixed environment inflicted on them increasingly in the <br /> last decades: roads, parking lots, runoff, and construction of houses, the park's development of <br /> the area with lawn and plantings that must be watered, EWEB's pruning and power lines. It's <br /> time to recognize that trees cannot coexist "naturally" with human beings in such an urban <br /> environment- -left to their own devices, many trees can't cope with the onslaught. Then we are <br /> faced with this difficult job of having to remove trees that could have been alive and thriving for <br /> many more years if they had not been afflicted by urban problems. We cannot eliminate urban <br /> problems - -I question whether we even want to stop watering rhododendrons in order to preserve <br /> the firs. We should be devoting our time not to last -ditch efforts to save trees that are already <br /> doomed, but to promoting the welfare of healthy, viable trees in locations where they can survive <br /> without too much intervention. The city needs our help, with volunteers, with making clear that <br /> trees should have a budgetary priority <br />