Love those italicized paragraph end sentences! But, the Forestry Commission undervalued those 177 mature trees at just $1.1 million. Didn't take into account the socio-econo-environmental values, incl. aesthetic values, habitat values, global warming/urban cooling values, carbon sequestration value, hydrologic control values, genetic values, etc., etc. Can't possibly replace them with like-kind mature trees, of course.

And the Forestry Commission shouldn't have opened the creaking door of "mitigation." Dumb. Don't go in the basement! [Cue creepy organ music]

"The Park and the Pendulum" -- coming soon to a neighborhood near you!

when you place a dollar value on trees, you've already lost the battle. live, standing trees don't have a dollar value.

and that letter? good lord. the fellow made a clear, unequivocal statement about what's wrong with destroying the trees--then swallowed it back whole in the last paragraph, making the letter essentially worthless.

Bulls-eye, ecohuman!

Don't get in the way, Saltzman. Run for cover into the trees!

Why are you ridiculing people who are arguing for doing the right thing? Maybe the letter could have been more artful, but the writer made the point that Lents doesn't have a lot of trees, can't afford to lose mature trees and that these are publicly-owned trees.

Nice letter. Here's how fireboy Randy interprets it- Note to self: tuck in another 1.1M to shut those tree people up. (cue chainsaws)

Where's Tre when you need him?....Actually a better choice of tree sitter would be Julia Butterfly Hill. We need a classy, articulate, determined tree sitter like her.