By Rob Pawloski Santa Monica
Yes, there are definitely two sides to the (ficus tree) issue, as (Michael Tittinger) mentioned in “We aren’t just talking about trees anymore” (Oct. 10, opinion). While I give much of his appraisal of the situation kudos, I believe his labeling of the sides is incorrect. To be clear, the “progressive” city in this battle over the ficus trees are the tree huggers and environmental activists on the march. The development they are questioning is certainly a product of a conservative, money driven, build-till-we-can-build-no-more ideology. Spending our taxpayer money to move healthy trees into the jet wash at Santa Monica Airport: Is this about corporate welfare? Developer welfare?
At the City Planning Commission meeting on Oct. 3, with the tree issue on the agenda, it was easy to understand the myriad of reasons that so many of Santa Monica’s residents have mobilized I had never spoken before a city commission in my life, but was moved by the cause to do so against what seems to be an ill-communicated urban development project with suspicious omissions and illegalities.
This fight has little to do with keeping Santa Monica’s sleepy resort image intact, but more to do with the roots of Santa Monica’s progressive image. These trees are truly our future, especially in an age where our planet is gasping to tell us that something is wrong. We need to be progressive to find ways to keep the trees among us, to nurture them and to reinvigorate them in areas where the urban “hardscape” dominates.
Standing now to save trees may be our last stand as a species. Without them, without clean air to breathe, there may be no more of those childhood games of Wiffle Ball (Tittinger) mentioned so fondly in his commentary.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on October 11, 2007. Read the original PDF.