THE LOW-DOWN ON THE TOWN Impudent, uncensored account By C. Castle

Where Were the Greens During the Pico Tree Massacre?

Looking out the window of our Pico office we couldn't help but notice what can only be called an unprecedented spree of urban clear cutting. When the buzz of the chain saws died away last month, more than 200 trees had been massacred.

Now, we realize that this was done for the greater good of greenery. After all, the trees -- whose crime was not conforming to a standard type or size - will be replaced by 488 London planes and 105 Jacarandas, which will grace the boulevard in a nice conforming row.

But the execution of the non-conforming trees led us to wonder: Where were our tree-hugging officials when the massacre was planned? After all, our city council recently spent nearly two hours debating how to salvage a single tree that was being sacrificed in Palisades Park to make way for a new bathroom.

So, surely, if they would spend that much time debating the fate of a single tree, they must have spent weeks debating the decapitation - or is it detrunking? - of more than 200 trees.

But sadly, that was not the case. Which got us wondering the other day as we drove past row after row of sawed-off trunks: Where was Green Party councilman Michael Feinstein when the trees needed him most.

After all, it was an alarmed Feinstein who once called us at The Outlook to help him save a single tree in his neighborhood that was being chopped down by the city.

Feinstein, who hadn't been elected to office yet, had panicked and rushed to the scene. He thought about tying himself to the tree, but had nothing to tie himself with. After the tree was felled, a heart-broken Feinstein lamented, "On a deep earth level, there had been great violence done."

The tree, it turns out, had a mate. "I was sick to my stomach," he told The Outlook. "The tree was a twin. There was a companion tree with it. As in the case with animals when they lose their mates, I understood this was going to hurt the health of the other tree."

Well, we must admit, we can't be sure any of the Pico trees were mates. Although they stood in close proximity to each other, they were divided by a short stretch of concrete.

But we also feel that losing a single tree is no less a loss than losing a mated tree. So we decided to ask Feinstein how he could stand by and let the Pico massacre take place.

"You never want to cut a tree unnecessarily or arbitrarily," the councilman said. "You have to weigh all the variables of what you're doing and is it worth it. In the case of Pico, we had a once in a lifetime opportunity to double the number of trees and have consistency along the boulevard for 100 years, compared to the existing trees, which frustrated a lot of the businesses, nor did they look great."

We don't know about you, but on a deep earth level that sounds like discrimination against non-stately trees. Just as bad, advocating conformity is down-right pro-establishment, something the activist councilman has long fought.

Besides, what if the scrappy tree had a mate, equally scrappy, that it lost. What do you tell it for the few seconds it grieves before the chainsaw arrives?

Did the council, which spent so much time debating the fate of a single Palisades tree, consider sparing the potential victims? In all fairness, the council did direct staff to explore ways to save the trees, and, indeed, a few trees were transplanted. But most were chopped down.

"We looked at that, and we didn't find any takers," Feinstein said. "In this case the choice we made is that there are many great boulevards in the world that have the same trees that made them beautiful majestic streets."

Feinstein makes the case that it's easier - and cheaper -- to save one tree in Palisades Park than more than 20 blocks worth of trees along Pico.

But we think it's more than that. Maybe the council just got carried away with the prospect of making over the entire street.

Maybe, just maybe, they didn't see the forest for the trees.