Council officers keep barking up wrong trees

Jay Kuten

Why the rush to fell our London plane trees?

In the 1970s, we had a farm in rural New Hampshire, in the United States.

The farmhouse was old - 1765 - and in front of it stood four 30 metre tall sugar maple trees, two of them quite near the town road, newly paved at our boundary.

In good years, the trees produced gallons of sap which friends took and rewarded us with a quart of fine maple syrup. An unusually lengthy ice storm burdened trees and one lost a major branch from ice and wind. It landed short of the house but near the road.

The Board of Selectmen (read "council") ordered us to cut down the two trees closest to the road for their potential as dangers to the road traffic.

Our fight was brief and, ultimately, fruitless. The felling, even in the comfort of the other two trees, left a wound and a deep sense of regret.

Respect for transparency requires me to lay out my biases where the issue of Wanganui's 130-year-old London plane trees is concerned.

None of these trees pose the slightest danger to anyone or anything that might possibly rationalise a need for haste in cutting down the six plane trees on Taupo Quay and others further along.

After a protest in December at the site, Mayor Annette Main appointed a working group to come up with alternatives that would permit the laying down of services with minimal disruption to the trees and no increase in costs. The group did a great deal of work, including research into the Powerco plans to extend underground power supplies along Taupo Quay.

Its recommended compromise was not heard at the council meeting, while council officers supporting the cutting were heard.

The outcome was a 6-5 vote favouring losing the trees. Frustrated and believing the process was not open, fair or inclusive, the working group is considering a judicial review.

This last resort may be necessary in the face of council's hasty determination to go ahead with cutting down the trees.

Open discussion of the reasoning behind each councillors' vote would be welcome. Admittedly, those in favour of going ahead with the development plan with all trees cut have a greater burden, requiring fact, not just opinion.

What generates concern is the haste with which this council decision has been made and the belief that the facts don't warrant the cuttings.

At least three of the proponents of the cutting plan were on council in 2007 when the decision to accept the sewage plant was taken. That appears to have been done in haste and those councillors have yet to step forward and accept responsibility, or give an explanation. If the killing of the trees is to go ahead, we need to know what we are to get in return. The proposed substitutes will be small and of no comparison to the beauty of the London planes, trees which have stood and absorbed the noxious fumes of cars and sewage, trading them for the clean oxygen we need to live. In return, Mayor Main says that Powerco assures us that there will be continued power supply to the precincts of business in Heads Rd and around Wilson St. There is so much wrong with this statement that I can only begin with the psalms - 146:3 - which tells us not to put our trust in princes, i.e. the powerful. Corporations are motivated by profit, not morality. If it pays Powerco to lay cable and provide continuity of power, Powerco will do so. If not, then all its promises won't make any difference. I'm disheartened when I read the otherwise sensible mayor asking us to cut off our limbs for the promise of power.

Whether through misunderstanding or poor communication, this process has the bad smell about it that haste and incomplete consideration create. As for promises, council had promised a review of the entire tree programme for our city. That needs to occur first. In the meantime, the trees need not only a stay of execution but a reprieve and a pardon.