By DENNIS BERTOLUCCI
"Oak tree 1, Longs 0," but the oak tree lost in overtime.
These issues keep coming back to the same argument, interference of business with environmentalism. Why do these issues keep butting heads?
Intelligent people on both sides with great points of view argue, from the business community as to why "property owners' rights are always trampled over a 'stupid little tree'" and from the environmental community as to "why the business community cannot see the value of 'a stupid little tree' or anything else dealing with nature?"
This is the core of the Longs oak tree issue. Strip away all the garbage and this is the actual argument. Business or property owners want to do what "they want" because they "own the assets!" And the environmentalists are saying "some assets cannot be owned because they are community property!" All of these environmental issues amount to the same thing: Who owns it!
The Native Americans thought the concept of ownership of the land was insane because the "land provides for everyone." But the new Americans had more money and wiped out the Indians. That's the main difference between business and environmentalism. The concept of economics is to gain assets and become powerful so your voice and will can be imposed on others with less assets. Whereas, with the environmentalists, the main concept is that we live in a natural living environment with laws of nature that apply to all.
Nature has its own accounting system, and unlike Enron or WorldCom, nature's accounting system is decisive and truthful keeping the ecosystem in balance. It is an insane concept that we control nature. It's insane to think business overrules nature and we don't have to live as a community member with nature.
Bottom line is, Earth will always be here. Earth doesn't care if the temperature changes one way or the other. But for the human race this matters greatly. You tell me how we live with no rainforest to temper our temperature, radiation circling the atmosphere causing cancer, destroying oxygen-producing plants and the natural animal ecosystem and not have it affect us. Natural ecosystems need to be understood and looked upon as an element to coexist with.
People are worried that "the government is going to prevent you from trimming your tree or cutting it down." Well the tree ordinance deals with trees with a 40-inch diameter base. Tell me how many are even left in this county with that size. And now with the cutting of the tree by Mr. Danny Shea there is one less because he had an egotistical temper tantrum.
The sad part is, and it's always been true, it's harder to build than it is to destroy. No one wants to use their God-given brains to come up with solutions because it's harder to do. The Longs store was not a good fit for that shaped property, but that property could have utilized the tree and have been a hallmark developed property with another tenant that could have benefited all. But a quick, ignorant, easy solution was found and all the business people are saying, "Good job, don't mess with my property, because I'll show you who's boss!"
As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Shea destroyed a valued property asset just
for childish spite. This is the reason some people cannot be trusted with
stewardship of some community assets. If we don't start getting smart and
coexisting with nature then this place will eventually look like the planet
Venus, complete with its sulfuric acid atmosphere.