Will starve for ficus trees: Santa Monica tree fight rages on

In case you haven't heard yet, Santa Monica's in an uproar, with some activists threatening hunger strikes! Why? 54 trees are -- gonna be -- OMG -- replaced with other trees!

The now rather funny fight over the ficus trees on 2nd and 4th St. continues. On one side: City officials who've planned the tree removals since the City Council decision months ago. On the other: Tree Savers, a lil group of treehuggers who more recently decided they want the trees to stay.

Both sides've been, let's say one-sided, in their arguments. Last I wrote about it, Tree Savers had put "Save these trees" signs on all the ficus trees, without bothering to note either on the signs or on its website that that some trees are damaged or sick or a threat to public safety. The City of Santa Monica, for its part, vociferously argued that the the fight's just over 23 damaged, sick, or unsafe trees -- while staying mum on the additional 31 trees marked for relocation.

Since then, Tree Savers has modified its website language to refer not to all, but "the majority of these trees," which they contend are being removed strictly for aesthetic reasons. However, it's unclear what exactly will make Tree Savers believe any of the trees are in fact diseased or unstable or damaged. LA Times notes that, even now, "Protesters want the city to prove the condemned ficus trees are diseased."

But what more proof do they need? The city's gotten the okay not just from the city's own arborist, but also a letter from an independent arborist (PDF) -- who, based on City Manager P. Lamont Ewell's statement, sounds like she was hired by the Tree Savers themselves -- saying these trees need to go and the city's actions are well sanctioned.

It's unclear, however, whether this arborist's statement refers just to the 23 trees that'll be turned into mulch, or includes the additional 31 slated for relocation. In fact, the city's really not addressed the concerns about the trees on the move. Clearly, the trees are healthy if they can be relocated. Some may be in the way of buses or other planned structures -- but the fact that the city continues to avoid talking about why these 31 trees are gonna be moved makes one wonder ....

I'd like the Tree Savers to quit calling for yet more studies, and instead agree with the city that the 23 trees slated for mulching should get mulched. And I wish the city would be honest and name exactly how many of the 31 trees slated for relocation are being moved for strictly aesthetic reasons. After all, since 2 arborists've now looked at the trees, the city's gotta know.

After that, the rallying cry shouldn't be so much "Save the trees," but "Don't move the healthy trees."

That fight, maybe I could get behind. Which is to say I live in a v. hippie city, with its residents  -- including me, since I've now written 2 posts about it -- all riled up over 54 trees. Oddly, this tree activism has Tony at LAist concluding that Santa Monica's not a city that cares about trees, but about Banana Republic. Hunger strikes for A-line skirts, anyone?

 

Update, 10/6/07: Tree Savers got a restraining order that prevents removal of all 54 trees unless they pose a danger to the public.

Image courtesy of City of Santa Monica

Comments

[Ian Swett]

I'd rather see them replaced with trees native to southern California, such as a Coast Live Oak or another street friendly native tree. Those ficus trees are pretty, but they really tear up a sidewalk.

[King Vanlines Moving and Relocation]

Well this was ought to happen. You cannot blame the authority for this