Only In Caleefornia

[dsm]

Yesterday in Santa Clarita California, a reported ONE MILLION dollars was spent to move an old oak tree to make way for a road being constructed thru a new housing development.

The developers had originally planned to chop the tree down. To stop this from happening, some guy climbed the tree and made it his home for over three months, with people cheering him on. Finally, the developer gave up, and decided to move the tree to another location.

After they had finished moving the tree, a nearby female resident was interviewed at the site and said,

"It had to be saved, since it's a Living Being."

[Al_Capone_Junior]

$1,000,000?

No doubt all taxpayer money somehow.

What a waste. They could have easily moved it for much less. what % of the $$ was kickbacks?

al

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
$1,000,000?

No doubt all taxpayer money somehow.

What a waste. They could have easily moved it for much less. what % of the $$ was kickbacks?

al

[/ QUOTE ]

Cost breakdown probably went like this:

$10,000.00 for moving the tree;
$990,000.00 legal fees.

[MMMMMM]

Amazing that some people apparently don't differentiate between living beings and sentient living beings. Not saying this resident didn't, though it sounds that way.

By the way, that is why I tend to think abortion before the embryo/fetus becomes developed enough to be sentient is probably mostly OK, but not after (except in very special cases, such as mother's life in danger).

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
Amazing that some people apparently don't differentiate between living beings and sentient living beings. Not saying this resident didn't, though it sounds that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not actively involved in such issues, one way or another. However, I tend to believe, that in reality, people fighting for a tree are not really doing it for the sake of the tree's life, but rather their own. In other words these people act in THEIR self interest, to satisfy their version of right and wrong. Furthermore, the sake of the tree (I believe) is only a tool in some people's fight against other things they dispise, such as urban growth. Finally, some people just like to mix it up and will use any excuse to do so.

If that is the case, what is so unusual then? Most (if not all) people behave in this manner. The the real question is the cost involved. I agree with the O.P.'s implied sentiment that the woman quoted believed the tree should be saved at ANY cost, and such a position is impractical, if not absurd. Living beings SHARE the world with OTHER living beings, therefore, all are subject to natural heiarchy and resulting power struggles. At some point, those further down the chain will give way to those in power - it is a natural progression.

Thus, if one BEING must succumb to the other, it becomes a question of whether that BEING can be spared, or must it be sacrificed? Because the deciding issue is cost, the a value must be applied. The value of a tree (its value measured solely as it related to the conquering party) is simply its utility and asthetic value to those who appreciate it. In this case, the tree was hundreds of years old and a beautiful speciman. For those who enjoy such things, it was a valuable asset. Even the construction company must have acknowledged the tree had some worth, because (after being confronted) it acquiesced to the protestors.

However, the real reason the tree was spared is that there was also value for the conqueror to save it:

[ QUOTE ]
"This tree was slated to be cut down," Rattazzi said. "Arguably, we've given it a second lease on life by our willingness to be creative and look for options. The tree is surviving very well and we're very proud of that."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is spin, pure and simple. This political solution serves the construction company quite nicely, and now they too, are good guys, spending "$1,000,000.00" on "THEIR" creative solution.

So, was the cost too high? I tend to believe no. The conquering party agreed to the solution and also derived a benefit.