Re: Beverly Kelley's Aug. 20 commentary, ‚ÄúNavy plan to get rid of trees needs a rethink‚Ä?:
An arborist told the Navy the trees are nearing the end of their lives and are decaying. This is a fact, not a "global-warming-denying," pro-oil, Republican scheme. Should one of those trees come down and damage private property or, worse, injure or kill someone, the Navy would be sued. Because this problem has been identified, the Navy would pay out a lot of money. The city of Port Hueneme would probably also be sued.
It reminds me of a similar story about 15 years ago, The owners of the Jolly Kone in Meiners Oaks wanted to remove an oak tree that was decayed, but a group of people and the county told them no. In the middle of the night, one of the larger branches snapped off and flattened a table beneath the tree. Had this happened during the day, someone would have been injured or killed. The owners would have been sued. The next day the tree was removed and replaced.
I am not anti-trees, but as a taxpayer, I expect the Navy to be fiscally responsible and prevent a potential lawsuit. Will Kelley, the Sierra Club or Wangari Maathai accept liability if one of these trees does fall and causes damage?
Perhaps Kelley and the Sierra Club could advise the Navy on what type of trees to replace them with. They could be replaced with trees indigenous to California.
I remember reading an article in The Star some years ago where an environmentalist group called the eucalyptus tree a "weed.‚Ä?
Maybe there is another way, but dragging this out over a decade makes no sense to me.
‚ÄĒ Mark Scantlin, Santa Paula