Richard Martini, in a letter to the Santa Monica Daily Press:
Editor:See the letter [here].
Who elected Mr. (Walt) Warriner the person to decide if a tree in Santa Monica lives or dies? I can’t believe the arrogance of this city employee, (the urban forester) who has declared, “A high risk tree is not acceptable to this city.” What’s his definition of high risk trees? The argument he uses — that the city lost a million dollars from a falling eucalyptus — is specious. Why not tear down all the eucalyptus trees in Santa Monica for fear of lawsuits? One carob tree falls, and 300 have to go. The same argument he’s made over the ficus trees (alternating between saying “every other ficus tree” is diseased, to “the canopy is bad for merchants,” to claiming that he can decide which trees are dangerous) is in full bloom when he declares the cities of “Glendale and Bellflower” don’t bother to consult their citizens when determining what to do about trees. Maybe I’m missing something. But it sounds much like the current Bush administration, telling the electorate to sit back while the “decider” tells us what’s best for us. Perhaps Mr. Warriner should get some tree sensitivity training. On the other hand, Mr. Warriner’s positions — it’s my way or the tree chipper — will certainly galvanize a sleeping electorate come election day.
Richard Martini
