By Jon Louis Mann Santa Monica
I would like to know why this City Council (except for Kevin McKeown) have decided to target 23 ficus trees on Second and Fourth streets for removal. If these trees are supposedly hazardous or damaged, why is this is not the case throughout the city? Do any one of (them) deny that the real reason is because of their proximity to the promenade?
I understand other ficus trees have been removed for similar reasons, but nowhere near the proportion of those near the cityscape project. How certain are (they) that every one of the 23 trees to be removed are damaged beyond repair, or unstable and likely to fall over? Why go to all the expense of moving trees to another location, when it takes far less effort to make them safe where they are?
Have elected officials — accountable to the residents of this city — examined any other alternatives, such as higher pavements, rubber sidewalks, pruning, etc? It seems like that would cost much less than the hundreds of thousands of dollars budgeted for removal and replacement with ginkgo trees.
Ginkgo trees will take at least 20 years to grow fully, and will never equal the shade these 40-year-old ficus trees provide. Not only that, ginkgos are dioecious, with separate sexes. The male plants produce small pollen cones. Female plants form ovules that develop into seeds after pollination that contain butanoic acid and smell like rancid butter when they drop.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on December 7, 2007. Read the original PDF.