Albany Today

0 Responses to “Commentary: Mayor Lieber is speaking for the majority of Albany residents”

1. Freyja Knapp says:

   January 21, 2008 at 12:54 pm

   As a current Albany resident I’d like to add my comments to this discussion of tree removal. I agree that a comprehensive plan needs to be determined and made public – and with real community participation in the development of the plan. However, I also agree that sick trees should be removed – and now or in 10/20 years matters little to me. With that said, I am not a tree expert and thus cannot comment on how sick these trees are and am in the position (as are most residents I think) of relying on expert reports. Tree removal is a very hot issue in planning as there are usually many polarized viewpoints ranging from saving specific ecosystems to personal sacred spaces or views. In response to the statement that Mayor Lieber’s comments are “speaking for the majority of Albany residents”, I would like to suggest that without polling, interviewing, meeting with, or otherwise collecting public opinions in a participatory manner, we do not know which statements are accurately representing the “majority” of residents. In fact, there may not be a majority opinion in Albany.

   I have also been involved with UC for a number of years and I know that they can develop plans without much community participation. I agree that the corner of San Pablo and Marin is a very public space and helps to define Albany. Whatever happens to that space should involve the “users” of that space – which most definitely includes Albany residents. Is the discussion here about the trees themselves or the fact that development may occur that would be objectionable? This is perhaps a good question for us residents to think about. Either way, more public should be involved (truely involved, not just notified) in the process – from both sides. My personal opinion is that the trees should be removed if they are a public safety hazard (and I grew up with them there – and think they are quite unattractive). However, future plans for the site need to be determined publicly and I am in support for waiting on the tree removal until a plan is finalized (most trees will not likely fall within that time).
2. Andy Austin says:

   January 22, 2008 at 5:47 pm

   UCB has had experts look at the trees. This is not the first time trees that are a hazard need to be removed.
   It is too bad for all of us in Albany that UCB will do what they want with the land after the trees are gone. Having lived in Berkeley, Albany and El Cerrito for the last 39 years, mostly on Marin Ave, I know what horror awaits us with UC’s idea for development. It will be hard to stop whatever they decide to do. We can only try. However, doing something which is unsafe, keeping the trees, is not a good idea.
   Perhaps after they are cut down we can quickly plant a whole lot more.
3. Bill Dann says:

   January 23, 2008 at 8:57 pm

   The UC spokesperson who stood up at the 1/22 city council meeting to defend the university’s rush to clear cut the 317 pine trees (180 next week and the remainder soon after) admitted that the university is shortening the schedule to stifle any community concerns.

   First, as the Albany City Attorney Robert Zweben pointed out, the University claims an exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that cannot be challenged for 30 days, by which time the first 180 trees will already have been clear cut. Once the first 180 are gone, then the remainder must follow (due to wind exposure).

   If UC were to comply with CEQA, then they must plant 317 native trees to replace the clear cut Monterey pines. Obviously, UC is preparing this plot of land for development–new trees would only get in the way.

   Secondly, by his own admission the UC spokesperson confirmed the obvious: UC must cut the first 180 trees down next week to shortcut a pending delay one week or so later in deference to the Cooper’s Hawks nesting schedule. No cutting would be allowed during the nesting season, so UC must act fast now.

   Thirdly, the purported safety of the community, by which UC claims an exempton from CEQA, is a bogus misuse of the CEQA exemption. It ain’t safety but timing that UC is concerned with: cut the trees next week before Albany can challenge the CEQA exemption, and get the clear cutting done before the hawks begin nesting.

   Then, we must smile at our swaggering arborist “experts” giving testimony at the city council meeting. Where have these responsible arborists been over the last 20 years? Not a single pine limb trimmed. Not a single pine tree thinned out to allow the others to grow stronger. And this in a property in plain view across the street from the City Hall. One outspoken so-called expert hadn’t even taken the time to strut the 20 or 30 steps required to actually look at the Gill Tract trees; yet, he was certain they must all be cut down immediately, sight unseen.

   The Gill Tract trees must be an embarrassment to the professional tree people who committed tree negligence on University property. Albany shouldn’t suffer the loss of a gem of an urban forest to cover up arborist negligence per se.

   The stand of trees is an urban landmark. The trees are confined behind tall fences, locked gates, and in the view of security cameras. As the Mayor offered, let’s slow down this rush to clear cut ,and review the matter taking community concerns into account.
4. Mark Bowman says:

   February 1, 2008 at 11:36 pm

   I quote: “Then, we must smile at our swaggering arborist “experts” giving testimony at the city council meeting. Where have these responsible arborists been over the last 20 years? Not a single pine limb trimmed. Not a single pine tree thinned out to allow the others to grow stronger. And this in a property in plain view across the street from the City Hall. One outspoken so-called expert hadn’t even taken the time to strut the 20 or 30 steps required to actually look at the Gill Tract trees; yet, he was certain they must all be cut down immediately, sight unseen.”

   “The Gill Tract trees must be an embarrassment to the professional tree people who committed tree negligence on University property. Albany shouldn’t suffer the loss of a gem of an urban forest to cover up arborist negligence per se.”

   I found out about this web site on 1/31/08. I’m the “outspoken, swaggering so-called arborist expert” I added the previous 2 paragraphs because I wanted to make sure I quoted this idiot accurately. I may have swagger due to forces out of my control. I wouldn’t know as that would be in the eye of the beholder. But you, sir, have developed your knack for lying and smearing intentionally over a lifetime.

   “Where have these responsible arborists been over the last 20 years?” You ask?
   I’ll tell you where I’ve been Mr. Dann. I’ve been minding my own business, consulting on pathogen disorders and structural stability issues pertaining to trees and shrubs. I’ve been selling my services, to whomever invited me on to their property. Hopefully I helped them resolve certain plant issues. I can’t even begin to count the number of trees I have prevented from being cut down over the years due to my having formulated a stronger argument against the removal. How about yourself?

   I know you probably have a hard time comprehending such a simple concept as being invited on to some ones property to perform a service. I’ve been aware of your hostile take over attempts at Golden Gate Fields, the Gill Tract and the way you smear any one who disagrees with you. You obviously feel it’s an arborists duty to invite oneself on to someone else’s property; as long as it’s not your own of course, and begin tree trimming/removal operations without permission. I believe in private property rights. A fundamental difference between you and me, Mr. Dann.

   You instigated this smear knowing absolutely nothing about me. I realize at the outset that no amount of reason will sway you. You are a zealot. You didn’t think in all likelihood that I would ever respond to your smarmy little smear attempt. Wrong! This is where your radical politics and your means to achieve those ends stops; and where practical, analytical, reasonable and responsible solutions to a potentially devastating problem begins.

   I watched a repeat of the city council meeting you were referring to, and it was clear I never said any of the things you attributed to me. What is abundantly clear after analyzing what you said, is that you know absolutely nothing about trees in general and even more than absolutely nothing when it comes to the hazards that coniferous trees with pathogens such as Fusarium, Armillaria, Stereum, Endocronartium, Coleosporium, Fomes, Cryptoporus etc. etc. harbor. Yea I know, you don’t have the foggiest idea of what I just said. That leads me to my main point. Stick with what you know, that way you won’t give me the opportunity to make a fool out of you.

   I never used the term “Expert” in referring to myself. You did. Thank you by the way for your confidence in my abilities. I’m sure I am completely off based in assuming you meant that as a slur.

   I admitted at the outset (at the meeting) I had not visited the Gill Tract, and that I was responding to an article in the Albany Journal. In that article, two professional arborists, each paid for their expertise, each from opposing sides, concluded that the trees posed a significant danger to the public. I simply stated; that since Mr. Cody from UC and Mr. Wolcott, (in my opinion each representing the best interests of the citizens of Albany) agreed on this danger, that there must be a logical reason for their meeting of the minds. I never stated that the trees have to be taken down immediately. I would never make a statement like that because as I said before; I have never been on that property, remember?. To put this as diplomatically as possible; You made that up out of whole cloth. Shame on you Mr. Dann. It’s time for you to go stand in the corner, and don’t move until I tell ya.

   I took the advice of a lady who spoke after me at the 1/22/08 city council meeting, and visited the site recently on 1/31/08. I was stunned at the hazardous degree of decay permeating the stand of monterey pines. In my opinion, as a professional arborist, the city of Albany would be certifiable insane to try and stop the university from moving ahead to reduce this very real hazard. This stand of trees was in far worse condition than what I had expected to find. It has since come to my attention that at least 3 other arborists are also in agreement with the other “experts.” I know you don’t think anyone else is an expert at anything besides yourself. I know that expertise, facts and empirical evidence, are little insignificant details that don’t make any difference to you. You are a zealot

   Since I have recently seen this pine stand first hand; and since I am in full agreement with the experts opinion, I am confident that the city of Albany will keep the best interests of its citizens in mind.

   I understand an Albany city council woman, after seeing the site first hand, changed her mind on voting to push forward with a potential lawsuit. It sounds like the people who know what they’re talking about are taking the proper steps to solve this very understandable touchy issue. Like I stated at the meeting “I love trees, that’s why I’m in the business.” However, you sir twisted what I said, and then scribbled down what you wanted to hear. If there was any other logical way to deal with this issue, while keeping public safety at the fore front, I would be all ears.

   I apologize ahead of time to any “professional tree people” who would not want to be included in the following statement: None of us were “negligent” or feel the experimental plot of monterey pines planted in the early sixties at the University of California experimental field station is an “embarrassment” in any way. I sleep like a baby. Sorry to disappoint you. I have added this disclaimer, because I know it is not my right to be speaking for other professional tree people. You, sir, willingly chose to smear all of us and particularly me without the slightest knowledge of what you were talking about. I know that a lot of valuable research on pine pathogens and genetic resistance to such was documented. I commend the plant pathologists who conducted this research. Unfortunately this experimental plot of trees has come to its physiological end and major action needs to be taken.

   I hope I got my point across. If so, you don’t have to stand in the corner any longer. I won’t have any discourse with you in the future unless we run into each other at a city council meeting where a subject I know something about is being discussed. I realize that you cannot have a rational discussion with an irrational person. If you had any character at all you could very easily have contacted me to find out in more detail why I felt the way I did. Better yet, you could have approached me at the city council meeting. We could have discussed the issue like 2 grown men, and then parted ways with the understanding that we have opposing viewpoints and hopefully no hard feelings. You blew that opportunity. You chose to hide behind a computer screen and assault my character knowing absolutely nothing about me. That’s the cowards way out. Have a nice day.