Information on the life insurance industry

Bill Dann says in essence:

The city of Albany could soon loose 317 trees at the gill tract. “During this age of global warming shouldn’t we be adding rather than reducing the number of trees in Albany? “

The 2004 master plan amendment states that if a specimen tree is removed from UC property it must be replaced with the same species. He then goes on to argue that perhaps a couple of the trees would fit that categorization.

Observation #1: In my opinion as a certified arborist; No Monterey pine from the Gill Tract deserves or will receive specimen tree protection. That would be a complete perversion of the well deserved Heritage Tree preservation ordinances that most major cities now have.

Observation #2: If you are going to use the global warming canard, which is used when every other ploy doesn’t work, than you have to add up the combined biomass (actual C02 absorbing leaf surface) of these so-called 317 trees. In my professional opinion, you might end up with perhaps 10 – 15 (not 317) sickly, normal sized, 45 year old Monterey pines, which are not growing in their native coastal environment. Wether it’s a more accurate 10-15 or the 317 as counted, its all moot because they are dead and dying.

Observation #3: In my opinion, the entire stand is in decline. 90% of the Gill Tract trees are dead or in an irreversibly strained condition. Strain is a technical term which basically means that no human intervention is going to be able to return these trees to a vigorous state. The other 10% will never be able to survive due to the disruption of the grove for to many reasons to get into. Bottom line, is that these trees, growing on an experimental plot, on UC Berkeley property, were never intended to become an urban forest. People who have no legal or moral right, have adopted this stand as their own. These trees are at the end of their physiological life span. Many are in such an advanced state of decay, that they would be placed in the imminent danger of falling category. That is the category where negligence lawsuits become a concern.

Observation #4: Some refer to this plot as a gem of an urban forest without mentioning who owns the forest. As a certified arborist, I would categorize this property as a now defunct experimental plot, of dead, dying, and decayed trees, in danger of falling into the most heavily traveled intersection in Albany. As an Albany citizen, I would refer you to my previous statement and add that; this land, at brief intervals, has been a temporary home for monarch butterflies and a few coopers hawks. It is also a noticeable greenspace across the street from city hall. Many of us have enjoyed this view over the years. However, it is on University of California property, and that is their trump card. I fully endorse their option to play this card, as I would endorse your constitutional right to invite whomever you want into your home with out others interfering.

Observation #5: Using bully eminent domain type tactics, would in all likelihood, return you nothing but an unwillingness of UC Berkeley to want to negotiate with the city on almost any level. You shouldn’t be trying to tell them what they should do with they’re own property. Instead, how about thanking them, for allowing us to have the enjoyment of that short term experimental plot, for far longer than it was ever intended.

Observation #6: Trees are being added within the Albany city limits on a daily basis on both public and private properties.

Observation #7: You are not going to see the C02 levels in the city of Albany rise one significant iota . Global warming is not a recent event. The earth’s temperatures have been rising and falling for billions of years, and will continue to do so. If it makes you feel good, to reduce your carbon footprint by making adjustments to your everyday lifestyle, more power to you. I would even say it’s commendable. Just don’t mandate that I join you in your concerns. In my opinion, the sky is not falling.

Observation #8: What would happen if the ever so evil and diabolical University of California (my interpretation of opinions I heard ad nauseam at the 1/22/08 City Council meeting) decided to actually follow through with one of the handful of conspiracy theories, such as to allow a Whole Foods to be built on their property. It would of course have to pass or fail on its own merits in accordance with Albany zoning restrictions. But just think of all the carbon emissions the globe would be spared from, by Albany folks not having to drive to Berkeley, to go grocery shopping at the (currently closest) Whole Foods.

On a more sane note, think of the sales tax receipts which would be added to the City’s coffers. Perhaps that money could actually be spent fixing the storm drain fiasco that has been haunting the more than patient, saint-like people in the Neilson/Curtis street areas for the last decade or so.

Observation #9: What is a more pressing, potential catastrophe? It’s that some unsuspecting pedestrian or vehicle could be injured, killed or damaged by a falling, decayed Monterey pine tree; not being swallowed up by a 30 foot wall of seawater, due to the icecaps melting, in I believe, 2043 or somewhere there abouts!

I would like to thank Brian Parsley for his kind words in reference to me, his provably accurate description of Mr. Dann, who I completely agree with, and for his accurate interpretation concerning the unfounded dislike (to put it mildly) of UC Berkeley that permeated that 1/22/08 Council meeting. I too have family members who have or are now working for UCB and they would not agree with the ignorant characterizations hurled from the audience. I never heard anyone actually state why they feel this way, so until I hear otherwise, I will choose to defend my statements.

THE QUOTE OF THE YEAR:

“To spread fear and distrust without knowing the facts” Well said Mr. Parsley!

P:S: Does anyone know of a good weather channel? I hav’nt been able to get an accurate forecast more than 24 hours in advance?

“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, strutting, 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 swaggered 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 pathogenic disorders and structural stability issues pertaining to trees and shrubs. I’ve been selling my services, to whomever invited me onto 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 someone’s property to perform a service. I’ve been aware of your hostile takeover attempts at Golden Gate Fields, the Gill Tract; and the way you smear anyone who disagrees with you. You obviously feel it’s an arborist’s 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 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 begin.

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 harbored by coniferous trees, i.e., pathogens such as Fusarium, Armillaria, Stereum, Endocronartium, Coleosporium, Fomes, Cryptoporus, etc.. Yeah 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 base 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 Albany City Arborist, 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 certifiably 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’ opinions, I am confident that the City of Albany will keep the best interests of its citizens in mind.

I understand an Albany City Councilwoman, after seeing the site first hand, changed her mind on her original vote to push forward with a potential lawsuit. It sounds like the people who know what they’re talking about, or at least trying to be reasonable, are taking the proper steps to solve this very understandably touchy issue. As 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 forefront, I would be all ears. No one should ever take advice from you, because you are a zealot! Remember?

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 or who we were. 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; but go to your room. 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 two 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 coward’s way out. Have a nice day. See you around Mr. Dann.