> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Bark up the other trees
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/bark-up-the-other-trees/
- Published: 2006-06-23T15:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-23T18:30:44.000Z
- Author: Guest Author
- Tags: Opinion, Santa Monica, #archive-import

The trees are falling in Santa Monica, and by the reaction from residents around here, you would think it was the sky.

The Daily Press, and presumably City Hall, has received numerous calls in the past two weeks from concerned citizens who are witnessing crews cutting down Eucalyptus trees throughout the city. Indeed, City Hall has hired an arboricultural firm to remove 77 aging and damaged trees. Another 440 will be trimmed over the next six months to avoid potential limb failures.

Because the decision was approved in a public meeting and city officials insist they alerted residents in the affected neighborhoods, the tree work should not be news to people. But apparently it is. What that means is, City Hall hasn’t done an adequate job in its public outreach efforts.

Despite that the project was discussed in an open forum at a City Council meeting in April, a news conference was held on May 5 at Reed Park, and information mailers were sent out to affected residents, the efforts weren’t enough. What the City Council should have done is advertised the fact that it was going to be discussing the matter prior to a decision being made. Or, the elected body could have instructed staff to gather community input before the decision, so the public at least felt they had a say in the matter. Even though city officials have made a strong case for removing the trees, at least people would have been educated as to why.

If people had been paying attention, they also would know that the trees are being replaced with a smaller species of Eucalyptus. The City Council increased the city forester’s budget to accomplish that replacement project, as well as do a better job of maintaining the trees in the future so they won’t become damaged or die.

Although they may appear alive and well, the trees being removed are either dead on the inside or are severely damaged. Eucalyptus trees continue to grow around their wounds. As a result, they can cause serious injury because of shedding limbs. That was the case for one couple, who in 2001, successfully sued City Hall for $1.5 million after a mature red-flowering Eucalyptus fell on their car, injuring them.

This is about public safety as much as it is about replacing old trees, many of which are at the end of their lifespan. City Hall hired an arboricultural firm in 2005 to assess the city’s 517 Eucalyptus trees. The firm identified that many of them are in danger of failing and need to be removed or trimmed.

We hardly believe that the people running such a “green” city would want to or would irresponsibly cut down trees. But it does happen. Consider the plan for Second and Fourth streets. If people want to get upset about trees, they should take a long, hard look at what city officials have up their sleeves for the Ficus-lined downtown thoroughfares next year.

In order to provide more light and open space to what have been described as “dark streets,” the plan calls for a total of 54 ficus trees to be cut down — 29 on Fourth Street and 25 on Second Street. Eighty ficus trees will remain. Of the mature trees cut down, 116 smaller, leafier trees — called ginkos — will be planted in their stead.

Dozens of merchants are outraged that City Hall’s solution to make the shopping corridors a block off of the Promenade more pedestrian friendly is to cut down perfectly good trees.

It does appear to be a not-so-environmentally friendly concept in a self-described “green city.”

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on June 23, 2006.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/062306.pdf?ref=smdp.com)