Login

Soulless acts

Editor:

A man commits slow suicide on our public beach while our hired professional services stand on the beach and watch. And now recently our hired professional services signed off on the conscious intentional murder of 31 beautiful, mature trees on Park Street in spite of an existing tree policy to the contrary. I am fi nding it rather exasperating to hear the outrage regarding their removal of the trees and the seeming complacency regarding the replacement. Those "soulless" individuals that were responsible should be fi red. And since they have perfectly demonstrated their lack of aesthetics, anything they have their fi ngerprints on should be required to be re-examined.

Also, any tree replacement designations that they have had anything to do with should be under complete review.

Finally — the new trees to be replanted should not be saplings.

Rather, we should spend the necessary funds to replant larger trees — even if it means ripping up the sidewalks in order to plant them.

Let's fi nd the most coveted funds available to the city "leaders" and fl ip it to the "Replant Big Beautiful Trees" project on Park Street.

Soulless acts should not be swept under the rug — perpetrators do not deserve to continue their membership in the responsible positions they have abused or where they have demonstrated a clear and unequivocal lack of stewardship.

— David Doyle Good riddance to those trees

Editor:

Come on, Alamedans, let's get a life here.

A little anguish about the vanished trees on Park Street is a good thing, I suppose, but really, now. Did any of us take a good look at the 31 trees that were removed — some of which still linger on side streets? Come on.

They were messy, poorly maintained, and, well, generally ugly; especially that one in front of Starbucks.

So, I say good riddance to the lot of them. And what fun we will have taking the little survey that will ask our opinions on new trees.

Take a walk east across Central Avenue and suddenly Park Street becomes almost pleasant. Crepe Myrtles. Ginkgoes. Who would have thought the bulb-outs that were all the chatter four or fi ve years ago could take on such character!

I wonder, perhaps, if the anger and angst about trees might have more to do with the conduct of city council and its approach to much weightier issues like tampering with our golf course and land swaps and such things as that.

While waiting for new trees on Park Street we can use the time refl ecting on issues throughout our city that are vastly more important than the few trees that were cut down while our backs were turned and without our approval.

— Steven Garner

Let's hear it for the palm tree

Editor:

I have lived in Alameda for more than 30 years. I have a suggestion for the trees on Park Street. There is a tree that once was the beacon of Alameda — the palm tree.

It once announced Neptune Beach to the whole Bay Area. Palm trees will grow tall and not obscure the architecture or signage, which is crucial to business visibility. Palm trees need very little maintenance, and can be decorated for the holidays in many ways. They will not hide our new and beautiful lighting. Their branches will not need to be pruned or hit by trucks or broken by vandals.

They could have seating beneath them, making for a more citizen friendly environment.

They will also be seen from a distance and make a inviting postcard and probably be seen from the Bay Bridge. Do we have the foresight and the pride to make this city stand out on a grander scale? It would benefi t us all.

— John Zanakis

Outdoor dining vs. ADA

Editor:

I have always known the city of Alameda to be supportive of many diverse cultures and people. That's what makes this Island special and nice to live in.

One thing I am starting to see more of is the proliferation of restaurant outdoor dining on the sidewalks around Park Street, as well as Encinal and Central avenues. I do think it adds to the ambience of the Park Street and Alameda dining experience to have outdoor dining.

Maybe the dining areas should not be so permanent. However, the extension of these dining areas is starting to encroach on the sidewalk and I feel pose a hazard with respect to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

A person in a wheelchair would have a very diffi cult time navigating the sidewalk if other people are walking toward that person.

In addition, the parking meters always seem to be in the wrong place blocking a person in a wheelchair trying to navigate the sidewalk. What has our planning department done?

Are they not considering ADA concerns?

Remember San Francisco had to spend untold dollars reformatting their council chamber dais to comply for wheelchair access.

— Jack Lim

Outside-the-box solutions to consider

Editor:

I have the perfect solution to the tree controversy on Park Street. Make the different trees out of different metals like stainless steel, aluminum and copper. These "trees" will not only age gracefully, but there will be no tree-trimmer to hire and no tree supervisor on the city's payroll.

The trees will be always there and we can rig lights in them and if a truck come too close, the trees would open the truck like it was a cheap can of sardines.

On the more serious side, I do favor John Knox White's approach of a blend of semi-mature trees, however, knowing how things are run at city hall these days, asking the public for input is a farce.

Members of the city council have already made up their minds. And what about the Mif Albright Golf Course? Ron Cowan will pass a few million dollars to the city. He will then built another nondescript project and the residents of Bay Farm will be clogging their streets like fl ocks of lambs in the south of France.

If Cowan really wants to contribute to Bay Farm, why not build halfway housing for ex-convicts on parole, a couple of buildings for lowincome housing?

Or would this affect the value of his empire?

Facing such mediocrity in government requires drastic action. There is only one kind of action that comes to mind: Recall them all. Alamedans did it 70 years ago!

— Joel Rambaud

Boycott Park Street Editor:

I'm boycotting Park Street businesses until new trees grow high enough to provide shade. The sneaky decision to remove these beautiful trees is an outrage.

I would like some investigative journalism to understand who requested the trees be removed and why this was done with no chance for the public to voice their concerns. It seems the city "leaders" and business owners forgot that they are there to serve the public. The public is not here to serve them. I will shop anywhere but Park Street and I encourage Alameda residents to do the same until this problem is fi xed.

— Jenni Ludd

Let's demand more from our city leaders Editor:

The recent front-page article ("City Seeking Tree Ideas," Nov. 17) about the loss of trees on Park Street and the online survey offered to correct this fiasco demonstrated both good and bad news regarding our community and its leaders.

The good news is that our community is now aware of the total lack of vision our leaders have when making crucial irreversible decisions regarding our natural environment, requiring all of us to be more dilligent and involved.

The bad news is that it demonstrates the total incompetence of our leaders to make decisions affecting our environment and its people, and we will have to wait until the next election cycle in order to vote them out office.

A few months ago we heard about our police and fire departments unwilling to help a drowning man for fear of lawsuits, and now we have our city council cutting down mature trees in the middle of town without having established a plan to replace them.

Didn't anybody bother to consider that mature trees are grown over long periods of time and not made in some bio-friendly green factory?

The lack of accountability for these actions is inconceivable, but if we don't demand more from our leaders, we truly deserve the useless mediocrity they offer.

— Joseph Lambert