As one local politico put it last week, “This is the breaking point? A few trees?”
In a word, no. But, as always, it’s important to consider the context in which both the problem and solution, such as they were, occurred.
On one end we have democracy. It is, as we have been taught seemingly since we have been taught anything, the best form of government possible, now and forever. It’s worth dying for.
On the other end we have church, symbolic of a direct line to God and all the moral authority that goes along with such a connection. It’s worth living for if for no other reason than because we’ll all eventually die.
In between, we have a major corporation and an independent contractor. The former is a well-recognized and heavily subsidized instrument in our society, to which we devote a mammoth amount of our various currencies. The latter is fodder for much of our mythology and legend -- the individual who, purely through entrepreneurial chutzpah and street smarts, ends up liberally rewarded with money and stature, which through the lens of our current condition equates to the right to be taken seriously.
We can and have unceasingly argued amongst ourselves about which of those four foundational entities bears the most promise or responsibility for defining who we are, not just in this case but in nearly every case. It doesn’t really much matter that the democracy here was New Albany city government. Nor does it matter that the church was St. Mary’s or that the corporation was Duke Energy or the independent business Abel Construction.
What matters is that when those four ever-present societal monoliths, representative of so much that we invest of ourselves and our willingness to believe, were called together under common auspice to work in conjunction with the full sovereignty we bestow upon them, they were collectively unable to do something as unexceptional as putting an ornament on top of a building without destroying something beautiful and natural that had managed to eke out an existence more precarious than we often care to acknowledge in the midst of all our rancor.
It doesn’t just raise questions about commonly held beliefs but rather about believing, in a much broader sense, at all. If the pursuit of monuments is that important to us, we’d do well to reconsider what’s worth monumentalizing, whether building them is actually better than nourishing them, and which is which.
32 comments:
I empathize with the underlying sentiments of people who were upset to see these trees go. But when I first heard about it, I figured there must be more to this story than just a last minute decision to fell the trees. And yes, there is. Having enlightened myself as to the entire situation, I cannot come up with a more realistic solution than taking the trees out and replanting.
What bothered me about how this played out on NAC was the assumptions (yes, the stumps have been ground out in preparation for replanting), the name-calling (scoundrels, culprits, malefactors), and just not getting all the facts out there before getting everyone's panties in a wad, so to speak.
Ann, I respect that. At the same time, the reason why I don't feel regret for my visceral reaction to the tree massacre (I choose that word intentionally) is that (a) it absolutely cleared my vision with regard to the societal back stories cited by Jeff in this post, and (b) it isn't always about the planet Vulcan. That's not aimed at you.
I might write more about my childhood experiences with chainsaws in the woods next door and my deep-seated anti-clericalism, but it wouldn;t be tremendously rational -- and right about now, I don't give a (word the Tribune is scared children might see).
Ann,
I also respect your opinion but I do have a couple of questions.
Why did you "figure" that there had to be more to this story?
Second, what was the explanation that so satisfied you?
Nice Post.
We've had a respectful disagreement on this, Roger, and that in itself it worth noting here in blogland.
The crucial details that made me conclude that tree removal was the best option are these: the steeple cannot be replaced in the same manner as it was removed, ie, in several pieces, so it must be installed from the Spring Street side. To do so, the power line must be dropped, as Duke will not allow it to be crossed by the crane. So these were the choices: pay a 5-figure sum to the utility to temporarily drop the line, or remove the trees so the crane could be situated in a way that the line would not be crossed, and replace them after work is done.
If I were on the BOPW, I couldn't refuse the tree removal request. It wouldn't matter to me whether it was a church or another entity making the request. St. Mary's has agreed to replace the trees when restoration work is complete.
Despite statements to the contrary, the trees were not 'mature hardwoods'. They were not trees suitable for a streetscape planting. Examine the trees on the east side of 8th Street, between Spring and Elm, and you'll see the issues with these trees, the pushing up of the sidewalk, the distress that is evident by the dead growth starting at the crowns of several.
Let's suppose that this issue occurred in the midst of a renovation or adaptive reuse of the children's shelter, or the Coyle building. Would you advocate that the entity doing so should expend over $10,000 to save 7 trees of a type like those at St. Mary's? I couldn't, especially if they agreed to replace the trees at their cost when done.
I understand the explanations.
And: Sometimes it isn't so much the message as it is the body language. In this instance, the body language from the entities involved contradicted their message. Call it instinct, or something less favorable, but it opened my eyes to factors beyond the trees themselves. My eyes remain open. I'll leave it at that.
And to address one more issue that got tossed about in this debate--New Albany has, over the years, planted many trees. These I remember specifically:
There was a brouhaha about 10 years ago when all the trees on Pearl Street, and I think on part of Market, too, all got chopped. I think Doug was in office then, and there was quite a stink. But the trees were a type of pear that's a terrible choice no matter here planted. They grow fast, but they fall apart quickly. Those trees have all been replaced, for the most part with Gingkos, an expensive and far better choice.
Likewise, the section of East Main between Silver and Vincennes sports new trees planted within the past 5 years.
My beautiful locust tree streetside in front of my house was a city planting, too. Unfortunately, so were a lot of the crabapples, and they'll be lucky to last many more years.
That's 'no matter where planted'. Yep, Mr. K, even those smug proofreader types make mistakes :)
I'm not taking a position on the St. Mary's tree removal. I want to make a different point.
For argument sake, let's say the trees were all dead and all of a species unsuitable for urban streetscapes. Also for argument sake, let's say St. Mary's has hired the most experienced, most talented and most urban conscious arborists and landscape architects to oversee replanting.
What next?
When the trees grow back, St. Mary's will look terrific when viewed by itself. It may or may not blend and compliment other properties on Spring St., even those properties where the owners took equal care with their trees.
There's a problem here that has nothing to do with St. Mary's, BOPW, Duke, the contractor or cranes.
The problem is a lack of coordination, a lack of a comprehensive design plan for the city. Such plans are not inexpensive. However, should the opportunity arise to formulate such a design plan, one that includes trees and other design elements, we should take action to see that the plan is well considered, forward looking, enacted and implemented. While it's very early, I hear such a plan might be in the offering and at no expense to the city. Who will help make it reality?
I understand your points, too, Dan, and know what you are referring to. In the city's defense, I do see that in recent times, the trees they have replanted have been well-planned choices.
Of course, it makes sense to leap on the opportunity to formulate a design plan that includes trees as elements. I hope, and expect, that the city of New Albany would embrace this offer.
Even if the best trees are being planted now, who knows what "junk trees" or chainsaws might come into play ten years from now. A plan gives everyone an agreed (...hopefully) point of reference.
According to the explanation provided at the council meeting Monday, two trees were required to be removed to facilitate the steeple installation. More than two were cut down.
As I have written on Shirley's blog this morning, perhaps justification beforehand would have been better. I see this far too often in New Albany. Explanation after the fact. Tabernacle, fire rescue boat, paving, etc. No wonder everyone distrusts everyone else.
Yes, I know the BOW approved the removal on Tuesday. A 10am meeting less than two full days before the cutting.
I, for one, did indeed gather all the facts prior to posting. I stand by my characterization of the participants and repeat my belief that the mayor and his administration bear the greatest burden of blame. Disagree with me if you will, lady, but don't accuse me of firing without aiming.
Your own demonstrated long-standing animus wouldn't have anything to do with your reaction, now would it? If anyone spoke without gathering the facts, that would be you.
Sorry, gotta drop back out of the discussion. Writing a couple of resignation letters, searching for the right words in a place that doesn't believe in it ...
Mark, I don't know that there would be a way to give a city-wide alert on a matter like this. Big issues, yes--but I don't consider this a big issue.
I cannot say for certain why the 5 other trees went, but as I mentioned previously, look at the trees over on the east side of 8th, and you'll see the problems. I'm guessing that since the tree service was already there, those 5 went since their days were numbered. Mr. Stumler of St. Mary's noted that some trees were dead or dying.
Coming as a shock (which was part of the problem), I wasn't too thrilled about the tree felling at St. Mary's but it wasn't until I heard the many explanations that I started feeling worse, not better about it.
The resultant list of lingering questions is long and involves pretty much everyone involved up to and including the average citizen so I'll spare ya'll but the overall feeling of it led to the post.
I certainly think an equitable, more systemic, long term plan would be generally desirable but I don't know enough about the specific one Dan mentions or how it would function to have an opinion about it one way or the other.
One thing I think would help in the current situation is for the city to intervene (hopefully productively) in the replanting at St. Mary's with the central idea being the restoration of the urban canopy. To his credit, that seemed to be the general direction John Gonder's questions were leading.
I could be wrong, but from what the church's representative said at the council meeting, it didn't sound to me like that's what they were concerned with in moving forward.
For me, it was simply disgusting. Plain and simple.
Watching that majestic, beautiful fir tree getting pulled and yanked on by the crane as its base was cut in half was sickening.
To a nature freak like me, that tree was a far better dedication to God, than the steeple ever will be. I will take singing birds over recorded bells any day. I will take evergreen boughs over patina copper any day......
Oh, and in case the compliment was aimed at the original post, thank you, Jameson. The photo is from a visit to Chickamauga a couple years ago. Struck me as apropos.
Randy, I am sure you and I have had disagreements over some issues, but I don't have any animus toward you. I just thought you were out of line by how you reacted, and I said so. That's pretty much it.
Chris, I know where your heart is in this. I worried about the bird's nests that might be in the trees, and I didn't like to see the trees go. But I understand and accept the decision as being non-malicious, non-underhanded and the most reasonable one under the circumstances.
Good post Roger. Drive by the Padgett Crane company over on Falling Run Creek. An entire wetlands has been paved over. The storm system is destoyed but no one minds. Padgett makes money ripping things out, like trees. The church and companies like Padget have done well here because we are an extraction economy. Take out the maximum, put back the minimum. One of the reasons I choose not to send my son back to school At St Mary's this year was the sad 1/2 acre parking lot they call a playground. It says alot about the church's relationship to nature I think.
It would not be that hard to get a few meeting up and lay out a master urban canopy plan. I'm up for it, anytime. I'll host it here at our house. I'll be out of town next week, but maybe the second week of June?
I can understand a lot of the reasons for doing it. However, I don't think it is anywhere near as clear cut(no pun)as portrayed by the supporters.
If the trees were in such bad shape and so detrimental, would St. Marys have petitioned to remove and replace the trees at their expense? They had not until the new steeple needed to be put in place. Did someone screw up on the design of the steeple? Did they think about installation? I almost get the feeling that the supporters are suggesting altruism on St. Mary's part.
I don't think St. Marys deserves scorn. However, I do think it is good lesson in how not to handle this kind of situation. Banner headlines were not necessary as notice but surely something more than 1 and half days could have served.
Agreed, it's not a "big deal" but apparently it is not a little one to some, either.
Mark, to my knowledge there was no screw-up, but the church didn't know what monetary demand Duke would make. It was prohibitive, and even though I am not a member of St. Mary's, I can't advocate for them to pay money to Duke that they could use for other, more beneficial purposes.
They do a lot of good work, and are one of our longest standing institutions. The operate the Hispanic Connection, feed the community's hungry, educate children, and have many other missions. It would be a shame to see money that can be used for those purposes get handed over to a utility company. Wouldn't it have been nice of Duke to offer to drop the line at a discount, or better yet, at no charge?
OK, there's one thing smelly about this stupid tree affair. Duke can and will drop power lines and/or re-route lines for good cause. They are a public utility and required to do so. When we were repainting over the last two years, Duke was able to offer line dropping and in the end total re-routing, just because I asked. Even if you had to pay $5000 or whatever to Duke to drop the lines, doesn't the value of mature trees even as much in Value? My great-great-grandparents who built St Mary's also provided for trees and gardens. The trees and gardens were explicit gifts, as much as the church structure. My ancestors would be stunned if they returned and saw the bleak asphalt jungle their green valley had become.
Ann, no one is claiming that St. Marys doesn't do good deeds. Still it was their contractor who was responsible for knowing. Should "he" be shot? Obviously not. We are all human and make mistakes. Still, the trees are gone. For better or worse.
It's done and this is just the post mortem. It's the learning that is important now.
Gina's absolutely right.
Wouldn't it have been nice of Duke to offer to drop the line at a discount, or better yet, at no charge?
Might City Hall have taken an active role in this rather than the easier option of chainsaw?
A snap decision made with a grunt is not the same thing as wisdom.
Roger, that's my statement:
Wouldn't it have been nice of Duke to offer to drop the line at a discount, or better yet, at no charge?
Sorry, Ann. It is your statement, and I agree with Gina's response v.v. the unfulfilled potential for the city to "negotiate" with Duke, if necessary. Sorry for the confusion. I'm doing multiple things at once.
There goes that little public/private alarm bell again.
And, just to allay any confusion: The post is Jeff's, not mine.
The destruction to the area of Falling Run Creek located at the rear of Padget's property, noted by G.Coyle's post at 10:15, was not caused by Mr. Padget but by a previous owner, check the record.
Post a Comment