[cardcrimson]

Changed the title of the thread. Probably more appropriate now. . . .

[cardcrimson]

Changed the title of the thread. Probably more appropriate now. . . .

[81alum]

Yup, Burlingame, and I’ll believe El Camino will be fixed when I see it.  Ironically the Eucalyptus trees were put in to break the wind. In any case, seems like non-native trees would be a weird hill to die on, but here we are.

BC

Agree this would be a weird hill to die on. Much like the Stanford "legal" discipline system, a long series of regulations have been added to target specific cases. Unfortunately the net effect includes many unintended consequences, some easily foreseeable, some not. The net result is a sclerotic system that in general prevents action, creating harm that will be addressed by another regulation being added. "Greedy" algorithms usually don't work well in global optimization problems, but that is what the regulatory systems usually produce. The ultimate example is the entire Italian legal system :-). Burlingame at least has the excuse it is all tied up in regulation and it can't act. Stanford does not.

IMO this discussion keeps getting routed toward false equivalences. Of course the storm we had was well above average and some things that normally would be perfectly safe will fail and become dangerous. Of course it would be unfair to blame anybody for what were perfectly healthy trees in apparently "reasonable" locations from falling. Indeed that happened all over the place, including to my property. However, that is NOT the situation Stanford was in. In 2017 a mere 300 ft or so up Alpine Road there was a major tree removal necessitated by bank erosion. Subsequently (as I found out last night) a group was created to negotiate with Stanford "to encourage the removal of Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees on their property opposite the Los Trancos Creek". Stanford was well aware of the "issue". Subsequently, in the last two years or so there have been repeated closures of the road due to trees from Stanford property falling. These did not occur in major storms, but in rather typical ones. They knew, or certainly should have known, they had a potentially dangerous problem.

IMO the recent response from Stanford is beyond pathetic. The response was from somebody who clearly was not involved in fixing the problem, but rather in "public relations". The idea that Stanford is only now "completing a preliminary review" of the problem is hard to credit, given the history and active discussions. It is also "interesting" that she got the number of fallen trees wrong. The letter also seems to present the idea that Stanford has no internal capability to manage the trees. Stanford  "is reaching out to well-equipped service providers to better understand the logistics of removing hazardous tree conditions." Imagine that. A world-class university that boasts an "Arboretum" as a major part of it's campus has no idea at all how to understand the logistics of hazardous tree conditions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_U..._Arboretum. Of course, what is going on there right now may lend credibility to that idea :-)
On top of that, she then proceeded to say they were working with SMC and CHP to close the right lane of the road. This is in fact admitting that a hazardous condition exists and that Stanford caused it. Why is that true on Monday and not on last Friday? So we are expected to wait until Stanford figures out what to do? I am perfectly willing to give Stanford a pass on something they couldn't have reasonably anticipated. This is definitely not the case here.

It is unfortunate that so many eucalyptus trees were introduced to California in the first place, coming with Aussie gold miners in the 1850s.  Our climate is great for them, but they spread like weeds and are incredible fire hazards, due to their rich oil content and the tendency for their leaves and paper thin bark to fly--burning--hundreds of yards behind fire lines on thermals.  Eucalyptus were a major culprit in the Oakland Hills firestorm of 1991 that burned down my godparents' house, and since then awareness has grown that they should be replaced with native trees with higher moisture content whenever possible. 

As with most very fast-growing trees, eucalyptus are not particularly sturdy and shed limbs in even light winds.  They easily out-compete the slower growing native vegetation.  Forests of them at Chabot require massive thinning to prevent them from going up in a firestorm of all firestorms.  So they are not low maintenance.

Meanwhile, various species of California native oaks are imperiled.  Eucalyptus should go, except as solitary specimens in open areas.  They can be phased-out gradually, over a generation or two, though gradual replacement.  I hope Stanford has a plan to do so.

[81alum]

Yup, Burlingame, and I’ll believe El Camino will be fixed when I see it.  Ironically the Eucalyptus trees were put in to break the wind. In any case, seems like non-native trees would be a weird hill to die on, but here we are.

BC

Agree this would be a weird hill to die on. Much like the Stanford "legal" discipline system, a long series of regulations have been added to target specific cases. Unfortunately the net effect includes many unintended consequences, some easily foreseeable, some not. The net result is a sclerotic system that in general prevents action, creating harm that will be addressed by another regulation being added. "Greedy" algorithms usually don't work well in global optimization problems, but that is what the regulatory systems usually produce. The ultimate example is the entire Italian legal system :-). Burlingame at least has the excuse it is all tied up in regulation and it can't act. Stanford does not.

IMO this discussion keeps getting routed toward false equivalences. Of course the storm we had was well above average and some things that normally would be perfectly safe will fail and become dangerous. Of course it would be unfair to blame anybody for what were perfectly healthy trees in apparently "reasonable" locations from falling. Indeed that happened all over the place, including to my property. However, that is NOT the situation Stanford was in. In 2017 a mere 300 ft or so up Alpine Road there was a major tree removal necessitated by bank erosion. Subsequently (as I found out last night) a group was created to negotiate with Stanford "to encourage the removal of Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees on their property opposite the Los Trancos Creek". Stanford was well aware of the "issue". Subsequently, in the last two years or so there have been repeated closures of the road due to trees from Stanford property falling. These did not occur in major storms, but in rather typical ones. They knew, or certainly should have known, they had a potentially dangerous problem.

IMO the recent response from Stanford is beyond pathetic. The response was from somebody who clearly was not involved in fixing the problem, but rather in "public relations". The idea that Stanford is only now "completing a preliminary review" of the problem is hard to credit, given the history and active discussions. It is also "interesting" that she got the number of fallen trees wrong. The letter also seems to present the idea that Stanford has no internal capability to manage the trees. Stanford  "is reaching out to well-equipped service providers to better understand the logistics of removing hazardous tree conditions." Imagine that. A world-class university that boasts an "Arboretum" as a major part of it's campus has no idea at all how to understand the logistics of hazardous tree conditions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_U..._Arboretum. Of course, what is going on there right now may lend credibility to that idea :-)
On top of that, she then proceeded to say they were working with SMC and CHP to close the right lane of the road. This is in fact admitting that a hazardous condition exists and that Stanford caused it. Why is that true on Monday and not on last Friday? So we are expected to wait until Stanford figures out what to do? I am perfectly willing to give Stanford a pass on something they couldn't have reasonably anticipated. This is definitely not the case here.

It is unfortunate that so many eucalyptus trees were introduced to California in the first place, coming with Aussie gold miners in the 1850s.  Our climate is great for them, but they spread like weeds and are incredible fire hazards, due to their rich oil content and the tendency for their leaves and paper thin bark to fly--burning--hundreds of yards behind fire lines on thermals.  Eucalyptus were a major culprit in the Oakland Hills firestorm of 1991 that burned down my godparents' house, and since then awareness has grown that they should be replaced with native trees with higher moisture content whenever possible. 

As with most very fast-growing trees, eucalyptus are not particularly sturdy and shed limbs in even light winds.  They easily out-compete the slower growing native vegetation.  Forests of them at Chabot require massive thinning to prevent them from going up in a firestorm of all firestorms.  So they are not low maintenance.

Meanwhile, various species of California native oaks are imperiled.  Eucalyptus should go, except as solitary specimens in open areas.  They can be phased-out gradually, over a generation or two, though gradual replacement.  I hope Stanford has a plan to do so.

[Goose]

I am actually somewhat of a "fan" of Eucalyptus. There are many in the Stanford Arboretum, of various species. The book by Prof. Bracewell Trees of Stanford and Environs details some of them. There are also quite a few on Stanford lands, like the path to the dish from Alpine Road, that are nice trees and are in relatively "safe" locations. If they fall, it would be virtually impossible anybody would be injured thereby. I am in no hurry to see these trees removed.

It must be recognized Eucalyptus trees are indeed a fire hazard. They literally explode when they burn. As a result, the large grove of these trees that used to exist on the hill near the junction of Woodside Road and Portola Road was recently totally removed. IMO this wasn't literally "necessary", as most of these trees were healthy. However, I can see the argument to get rid of them as a severe fire risk in a wooded area. I definitely support removing all of them that are within 5 feet or so of the creek, as the banks often erode several feet in a single storm, especially when there is blockage due to other trees upstream falling into the creek. This is especially so in the cases where they can fall toward Alpine Road.

I do applaud SMC for putting in place an exemption to allow property owners to remove such trees without getting "permission". Local politics alert, I think the current situation where many "outside" agencies can prevent tree removal on private property is a "bad idea", despite the associated "good intentions". The Oak trees along the creek also desperately need "management", but as others have pointed out, the paperwork and dollars thereby required makes it very difficult. There is a new one that fell into the middle of the creek last week that is just begging to create an obstruction and force the creek closer to the road. It will be in almost the same spot as one of the 2017 "remediations". There is no exemption for this "native" species (and lots of it is in Santa Clara Country anyway).

IMO the Cal Trans authority along 82 in Burlingame regarding trees should be limited to questions of traffic obstruction. It the city wants to do something that obstructs traffic, Cal Trans could possibly veto it. If the City wants to remove trees, that doesn't obstruct traffic and Cal Trans should stay out of it. It just isn't the States business IMO. It makes everything harder when you get more agencies involved, many of which have no obvious interest in the issue at hand.

[Goose]

I am actually somewhat of a "fan" of Eucalyptus. There are many in the Stanford Arboretum, of various species. The book by Prof. Bracewell Trees of Stanford and Environs details some of them. There are also quite a few on Stanford lands, like the path to the dish from Alpine Road, that are nice trees and are in relatively "safe" locations. If they fall, it would be virtually impossible anybody would be injured thereby. I am in no hurry to see these trees removed.

It must be recognized Eucalyptus trees are indeed a fire hazard. They literally explode when they burn. As a result, the large grove of these trees that used to exist on the hill near the junction of Woodside Road and Portola Road was recently totally removed. IMO this wasn't literally "necessary", as most of these trees were healthy. However, I can see the argument to get rid of them as a severe fire risk in a wooded area. I definitely support removing all of them that are within 5 feet or so of the creek, as the banks often erode several feet in a single storm, especially when there is blockage due to other trees upstream falling into the creek. This is especially so in the cases where they can fall toward Alpine Road.

I do applaud SMC for putting in place an exemption to allow property owners to remove such trees without getting "permission". Local politics alert, I think the current situation where many "outside" agencies can prevent tree removal on private property is a "bad idea", despite the associated "good intentions". The Oak trees along the creek also desperately need "management", but as others have pointed out, the paperwork and dollars thereby required makes it very difficult. There is a new one that fell into the middle of the creek last week that is just begging to create an obstruction and force the creek closer to the road. It will be in almost the same spot as one of the 2017 "remediations". There is no exemption for this "native" species (and lots of it is in Santa Clara Country anyway).

IMO the Cal Trans authority along 82 in Burlingame regarding trees should be limited to questions of traffic obstruction. It the city wants to do something that obstructs traffic, Cal Trans could possibly veto it. If the City wants to remove trees, that doesn't obstruct traffic and Cal Trans should stay out of it. It just isn't the States business IMO. It makes everything harder when you get more agencies involved, many of which have no obvious interest in the issue at hand.

[cardcrimson]

Was thinking about the cost of cutting down a eucalyptus, and it is probably several thousand per tree. I searched, and oddly this popped up:

https://treespiritproject.com/sfbayclearcut/

There are two sides to every coin, and in some cases apparently a third. I have no connection to the tree spirit project, and posted it with little to no comment. . . .

[cardcrimson]

Was thinking about the cost of cutting down a eucalyptus, and it is probably several thousand per tree. I searched, and oddly this popped up:

https://treespiritproject.com/sfbayclearcut/

There are two sides to every coin, and in some cases apparently a third. I have no connection to the tree spirit project, and posted it with little to no comment. . . .

[lex24]

Was thinking about the cost of cutting down a eucalyptus, and it is probably several thousand per tree. I searched, and oddly this popped up:

https://treespiritproject.com/sfbayclearcut/

There are two sides to every coin, and in some cases apparently a third. I have no connection to the tree spirit project, and posted it with little to no comment. . . .

I am relatively confident than too few trees is not one California’s problems.

[lex24]

Was thinking about the cost of cutting down a eucalyptus, and it is probably several thousand per tree. I searched, and oddly this popped up:

https://treespiritproject.com/sfbayclearcut/

There are two sides to every coin, and in some cases apparently a third. I have no connection to the tree spirit project, and posted it with little to no comment. . . .

I am relatively confident than too few trees is not one California’s problems.

[GK3]

Was thinking about the cost of cutting down a eucalyptus, and it is probably several thousand per tree. I searched, and oddly this popped up:

https://treespiritproject.com/sfbayclearcut/

There are two sides to every coin, and in some cases apparently a third. I have no connection to the tree spirit project, and posted it with little to no comment. . . .

I am relatively confident than too few trees is not one California’s problems.

The tree was planted often in Southern California to protect tree crops whose fruit could be damaged by the wind.  Wind damaged fruit pays the grower far less.  Unless you have spent some time Australia, you might not know that one variety of the tree in Australia is the 2nd tallest tree in the world.  One would never know it to see the normal variety that populates Australia.  If ever in Australia go see the trees, they are rather amazing.
https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/...e%20Valley.

[GK3]

Was thinking about the cost of cutting down a eucalyptus, and it is probably several thousand per tree. I searched, and oddly this popped up:

https://treespiritproject.com/sfbayclearcut/

There are two sides to every coin, and in some cases apparently a third. I have no connection to the tree spirit project, and posted it with little to no comment. . . .

I am relatively confident than too few trees is not one California’s problems.

The tree was planted often in Southern California to protect tree crops whose fruit could be damaged by the wind.  Wind damaged fruit pays the grower far less.  Unless you have spent some time Australia, you might not know that one variety of the tree in Australia is the 2nd tallest tree in the world.  One would never know it to see the normal variety that populates Australia.  If ever in Australia go see the trees, they are rather amazing.
https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/...e%20Valley.

[Goose]

https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2023/03...owned-land

Good map showing jurisdictions. The picture in the article shows the proximity to the trees and creek. They really aren't that hard to reach. That is an obviously flawed assertion. Ironically, the activity on the Santa Clara side of the creek slightly up Alpine Road is a tree farm! For those interested, https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4072379,...a=!3m1!1e3 gives an aerial view showing that in fact access is quite easy.

FWIW, when Stanford does cut anything in the area, they generally do not haul away the pieces. They leave it on the creek bank. This makes it lots cheaper for them because they don't have to pay for disposal. Arguably, it is more "natural", although in some cases it is also pretty ugly.

[Goose]

https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2023/03...owned-land

Good map showing jurisdictions. The picture in the article shows the proximity to the trees and creek. They really aren't that hard to reach. That is an obviously flawed assertion. Ironically, the activity on the Santa Clara side of the creek slightly up Alpine Road is a tree farm! For those interested, https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4072379,...a=!3m1!1e3 gives an aerial view showing that in fact access is quite easy.

FWIW, when Stanford does cut anything in the area, they generally do not haul away the pieces. They leave it on the creek bank. This makes it lots cheaper for them because they don't have to pay for disposal. Arguably, it is more "natural", although in some cases it is also pretty ugly.

[81alum]

I put myself through Stanford as a BLM fire fighter (Bureau of Land Management, not the new acronym) working summers.  I have seen eucalyptus go up like torches--thirty seconds from the deep piles of bark tinder at the base to the crown.  I have seen them explode like bombs as the oils inside vaporize and light.  I have seen forests of them alight, creating thermals with mushroom clouds spewing burning embers thousands of feet away. 

I have also been on conifer fires and rangeland fires, and nothing compares to a eucalyptus fire.

Portugal, like California, embraced eucalyptus but paid a severe price.

https://www.politico.eu/article/portugal...er-forest/

Australia has had horrendous eucalyptus fires during recent drought years after making the same mistakes that we have--too much fire suppression for too long, creating gargantuan tinder boxes.  Eucalyptus, like lodgepole pine, are adapted to fire to stay in balance.  Regular burning is natural.  Gargantuan trees are not.  Eucalyptus groves belong in areas where regular burning is possible.  They do not belong anywhere near residential homes or universities.

https://www.livescience.com/40583-austra...fires.html

[81alum]

I put myself through Stanford as a BLM fire fighter (Bureau of Land Management, not the new acronym) working summers.  I have seen eucalyptus go up like torches--thirty seconds from the deep piles of bark tinder at the base to the crown.  I have seen them explode like bombs as the oils inside vaporize and light.  I have seen forests of them alight, creating thermals with mushroom clouds spewing burning embers thousands of feet away. 

I have also been on conifer fires and rangeland fires, and nothing compares to a eucalyptus fire.

Portugal, like California, embraced eucalyptus but paid a severe price.

https://www.politico.eu/article/portugal...er-forest/

Australia has had horrendous eucalyptus fires during recent drought years after making the same mistakes that we have--too much fire suppression for too long, creating gargantuan tinder boxes.  Eucalyptus, like lodgepole pine, are adapted to fire to stay in balance.  Regular burning is natural.  Gargantuan trees are not.  Eucalyptus groves belong in areas where regular burning is possible.  They do not belong anywhere near residential homes or universities.

https://www.livescience.com/40583-austra...fires.html

[Mick]

Some interesting statistics on California fires, inclusive of wildland fires, structure fires, "other" fires, medical fires, hazmat fires, law enforcement fires and public service fires. Nearly 125k fires to date in 2023.

Statistics | CAL FIRE

2022 Fire Season Incident Archive | CAL FIRE

[Mick]

Some interesting statistics on California fires, inclusive of wildland fires, structure fires, "other" fires, medical fires, hazmat fires, law enforcement fires and public service fires. Nearly 125k fires to date in 2023.

Statistics | CAL FIRE

2022 Fire Season Incident Archive | CAL FIRE

[cardcrimson]

I put myself through Stanford as a BLM fire fighter (Bureau of Land Management, not the new acronym) working summers.  I have seen eucalyptus go up like torches--thirty seconds from the deep piles of bark tinder at the base to the crown.  I have seen them explode like bombs as the oils inside vaporize and light.  I have seen forests of them alight, creating thermals with mushroom clouds spewing burning embers thousands of feet away. 

I have also been on conifer fires and rangeland fires, and nothing compares to a eucalyptus fire.

Portugal, like California, embraced eucalyptus but paid a severe price.

https://www.politico.eu/article/portugal...er-forest/

Australia has had horrendous eucalyptus fires during recent drought years after making the same mistakes that we have--too much fire suppression for too long, creating gargantuan tinder boxes.  Eucalyptus, like lodgepole pine, are adapted to fire to stay in balance.  Regular burning is natural.  Gargantuan trees are not.  Eucalyptus groves belong in areas where regular burning is possible.  They do not belong anywhere near residential homes or universities.

https://www.livescience.com/40583-austra...fires.html

Great info. I'm actually on a zoom call with client in Australia and complained about the eucalyptus trees they sent us. Apparently, the aborigines would burn the trees back regularly to keep them in check. That practice ended when the colonization started. . . . .

[cardcrimson]

I put myself through Stanford as a BLM fire fighter (Bureau of Land Management, not the new acronym) working summers.  I have seen eucalyptus go up like torches--thirty seconds from the deep piles of bark tinder at the base to the crown.  I have seen them explode like bombs as the oils inside vaporize and light.  I have seen forests of them alight, creating thermals with mushroom clouds spewing burning embers thousands of feet away. 

I have also been on conifer fires and rangeland fires, and nothing compares to a eucalyptus fire.

Portugal, like California, embraced eucalyptus but paid a severe price.

https://www.politico.eu/article/portugal...er-forest/

Australia has had horrendous eucalyptus fires during recent drought years after making the same mistakes that we have--too much fire suppression for too long, creating gargantuan tinder boxes.  Eucalyptus, like lodgepole pine, are adapted to fire to stay in balance.  Regular burning is natural.  Gargantuan trees are not.  Eucalyptus groves belong in areas where regular burning is possible.  They do not belong anywhere near residential homes or universities.

https://www.livescience.com/40583-austra...fires.html

Great info. I'm actually on a zoom call with client in Australia and complained about the eucalyptus trees they sent us. Apparently, the aborigines would burn the trees back regularly to keep them in check. That practice ended when the colonization started. . . . .

[threepointer]

And if winflop and others are concerned that conservative voices are no longer welcome on campus, do not worry. The Hoover Institution is stronger than it has ever been.  Stanford has now helped grow Hoover's endowment to over $750M (bigger than the endowments of many colleges). It is currently run by Stanford's former provost and has an annual budget of almost $80M. Its fellows include Stanford law professors and faculty members from many other departments.  Many Hoover affiliates played major roles in the Trump administration, including National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis.  Hoover's facilities are in the center of campus (right next to the Quad) and have grown with sparkling new research buildings and lecture halls added in recent years. They regularly host high profile conservative speakers and others on campus without incident.

The Hoover Institution On War Revolution and Peace "seeks to improve the human condition by advancing ideas that promote economic opportunity and prosperity, while securing and safeguarding peace for America and all mankind.  It is the essentially now the only "center/right" organization at Stanford.  It has a budget of $80 million.  Stanford's budget is $8 billion+.  Hoover punches above its weight because of the notoriety, quality, and experience of its Fellows, but it is basically a pimple on Stanford's *ss.  It is separate, but not entirely apart, from Stanford's Undergraduate and Graduate mission.

The Stanford Research Institute was also separate and apart from Stanford's central mission until it was separated from Stanford in response to student protests in 1970.  Of course, nobody is suggesting that for Hoover.  Right?

Some of us who were students in the early 1980s remember the effort to separate Hoover from Stanford.  That effort was led, in part, by students in the law school.  One of them was the brother of a candidate for President of the United States in the 2020 election. My bet is that it will happen again. I fear that the Hoover Institution's long term affiliation with Stanford is tenuous, at best.

[threepointer]

And if winflop and others are concerned that conservative voices are no longer welcome on campus, do not worry. The Hoover Institution is stronger than it has ever been.  Stanford has now helped grow Hoover's endowment to over $750M (bigger than the endowments of many colleges). It is currently run by Stanford's former provost and has an annual budget of almost $80M. Its fellows include Stanford law professors and faculty members from many other departments.  Many Hoover affiliates played major roles in the Trump administration, including National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis.  Hoover's facilities are in the center of campus (right next to the Quad) and have grown with sparkling new research buildings and lecture halls added in recent years. They regularly host high profile conservative speakers and others on campus without incident.

The Hoover Institution On War Revolution and Peace "seeks to improve the human condition by advancing ideas that promote economic opportunity and prosperity, while securing and safeguarding peace for America and all mankind.  It is the essentially now the only "center/right" organization at Stanford.  It has a budget of $80 million.  Stanford's budget is $8 billion+.  Hoover punches above its weight because of the notoriety, quality, and experience of its Fellows, but it is basically a pimple on Stanford's *ss.  It is separate, but not entirely apart, from Stanford's Undergraduate and Graduate mission.

The Stanford Research Institute was also separate and apart from Stanford's central mission until it was separated from Stanford in response to student protests in 1970.  Of course, nobody is suggesting that for Hoover.  Right?

Some of us who were students in the early 1980s remember the effort to separate Hoover from Stanford.  That effort was led, in part, by students in the law school.  One of them was the brother of a candidate for President of the United States in the 2020 election. My bet is that it will happen again. I fear that the Hoover Institution's long term affiliation with Stanford is tenuous, at best.

[GK3]

I put myself through Stanford as a BLM fire fighter (Bureau of Land Management, not the new acronym) working summers.  I have seen eucalyptus go up like torches--thirty seconds from the deep piles of bark tinder at the base to the crown.  I have seen them explode like bombs as the oils inside vaporize and light.  I have seen forests of them alight, creating thermals with mushroom clouds spewing burning embers thousands of feet away. 

I have also been on conifer fires and rangeland fires, and nothing compares to a eucalyptus fire.

Portugal, like California, embraced eucalyptus but paid a severe price.

https://www.politico.eu/article/portugal...er-forest/

Australia has had horrendous eucalyptus fires during recent drought years after making the same mistakes that we have--too much fire suppression for too long, creating gargantuan tinder boxes.  Eucalyptus, like lodgepole pine, are adapted to fire to stay in balance.  Regular burning is natural.  Gargantuan trees are not.  Eucalyptus groves belong in areas where regular burning is possible.  They do not belong anywhere near residential homes or universities.

https://www.livescience.com/40583-austra...fires.html

Great info. I'm actually on a zoom call with client in Australia and complained about the eucalyptus trees they sent us. Apparently, the aborigines would burn the trees back regularly to keep them in check. That practice ended when the colonization started. . . . .

Interesting, I worked for the Forest Service Fire Crews during Summers at Stanford.  Never dealt with Eucalyptus fires, but saw plenty of wind driven crown fires exploding up steep slopes as the wind blew superheated air ahead of the fire and acres ignite all at once.  Not something you want to be in front of, to say nothing of So Cal brush fires burning through brush that hadn't burned for years.  That stuff was really ugly.  Suffice it to say sometimes the work was very hard and dangerous and the rest of the time it was a bunch of college guys cleaning up campgrounds and doing whatever the district thought of to pass the time until the next fire.

[GK3]

I put myself through Stanford as a BLM fire fighter (Bureau of Land Management, not the new acronym) working summers.  I have seen eucalyptus go up like torches--thirty seconds from the deep piles of bark tinder at the base to the crown.  I have seen them explode like bombs as the oils inside vaporize and light.  I have seen forests of them alight, creating thermals with mushroom clouds spewing burning embers thousands of feet away. 

I have also been on conifer fires and rangeland fires, and nothing compares to a eucalyptus fire.

Portugal, like California, embraced eucalyptus but paid a severe price.

https://www.politico.eu/article/portugal...er-forest/

Australia has had horrendous eucalyptus fires during recent drought years after making the same mistakes that we have--too much fire suppression for too long, creating gargantuan tinder boxes.  Eucalyptus, like lodgepole pine, are adapted to fire to stay in balance.  Regular burning is natural.  Gargantuan trees are not.  Eucalyptus groves belong in areas where regular burning is possible.  They do not belong anywhere near residential homes or universities.

https://www.livescience.com/40583-austra...fires.html

Great info. I'm actually on a zoom call with client in Australia and complained about the eucalyptus trees they sent us. Apparently, the aborigines would burn the trees back regularly to keep them in check. That practice ended when the colonization started. . . . .

Interesting, I worked for the Forest Service Fire Crews during Summers at Stanford.  Never dealt with Eucalyptus fires, but saw plenty of wind driven crown fires exploding up steep slopes as the wind blew superheated air ahead of the fire and acres ignite all at once.  Not something you want to be in front of, to say nothing of So Cal brush fires burning through brush that hadn't burned for years.  That stuff was really ugly.  Suffice it to say sometimes the work was very hard and dangerous and the rest of the time it was a bunch of college guys cleaning up campgrounds and doing whatever the district thought of to pass the time until the next fire.

[winflop]

And if winflop and others are concerned that conservative voices are no longer welcome on campus, do not worry. The Hoover Institution is stronger than it has ever been.  Stanford has now helped grow Hoover's endowment to over $750M (bigger than the endowments of many colleges). It is currently run by Stanford's former provost and has an annual budget of almost $80M. Its fellows include Stanford law professors and faculty members from many other departments.  Many Hoover affiliates played major roles in the Trump administration, including National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis.  Hoover's facilities are in the center of campus (right next to the Quad) and have grown with sparkling new research buildings and lecture halls added in recent years. They regularly host high profile conservative speakers and others on campus without incident.

Please don't try to politicize my words. I'd be just as pissed off if a liberal speaker had been shouted down by conservative students (not that this would happen at Stanford). This is about opposition to hearing opinions that differ from their own and an unwillingness to engage in civil discourse - mainly by the administration but also the students.

It's also one of many issues I've had over the last few years that have nothing to do with politics. It's about Drell & MTL paying lip service to increasing mental health resources in the wake of Katie Meyer's suicide. It's about Muir's failure to have sufficient controls in place to scrutinize a half-million dollar donation to the friggin sailing program by people who'd never donated to Stanford before. It's about the stupid misguided decision to eliminate 11 varsity sports without even exploring the opportunity to fundraise from the athletics donor base, and then saying it's a done deal and nothing can be done to change it. It's about the abject failure to provide constitutional due process rights to students accused of sexual misconduct. It's about a Board of Trustees that didn't tell MTL that he needs to take a leave of absence while they investigate serious allegations of academic misconduct. And on and on. I think every one of the issues has caused Stanford significant embarassment, and to my knowledge there have been no consequences for any of them.

[winflop]

And if winflop and others are concerned that conservative voices are no longer welcome on campus, do not worry. The Hoover Institution is stronger than it has ever been.  Stanford has now helped grow Hoover's endowment to over $750M (bigger than the endowments of many colleges). It is currently run by Stanford's former provost and has an annual budget of almost $80M. Its fellows include Stanford law professors and faculty members from many other departments.  Many Hoover affiliates played major roles in the Trump administration, including National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis.  Hoover's facilities are in the center of campus (right next to the Quad) and have grown with sparkling new research buildings and lecture halls added in recent years. They regularly host high profile conservative speakers and others on campus without incident.

Please don't try to politicize my words. I'd be just as pissed off if a liberal speaker had been shouted down by conservative students (not that this would happen at Stanford). This is about opposition to hearing opinions that differ from their own and an unwillingness to engage in civil discourse - mainly by the administration but also the students.

It's also one of many issues I've had over the last few years that have nothing to do with politics. It's about Drell & MTL paying lip service to increasing mental health resources in the wake of Katie Meyer's suicide. It's about Muir's failure to have sufficient controls in place to scrutinize a half-million dollar donation to the friggin sailing program by people who'd never donated to Stanford before. It's about the stupid misguided decision to eliminate 11 varsity sports without even exploring the opportunity to fundraise from the athletics donor base, and then saying it's a done deal and nothing can be done to change it. It's about the abject failure to provide constitutional due process rights to students accused of sexual misconduct. It's about a Board of Trustees that didn't tell MTL that he needs to take a leave of absence while they investigate serious allegations of academic misconduct. And on and on. I think every one of the issues has caused Stanford significant embarassment, and to my knowledge there have been no consequences for any of them.

[81alum]

I put myself through Stanford as a BLM fire fighter (Bureau of Land Management, not the new acronym) working summers.  I have seen eucalyptus go up like torches--thirty seconds from the deep piles of bark tinder at the base to the crown.  I have seen them explode like bombs as the oils inside vaporize and light.  I have seen forests of them alight, creating thermals with mushroom clouds spewing burning embers thousands of feet away. 

I have also been on conifer fires and rangeland fires, and nothing compares to a eucalyptus fire.

Portugal, like California, embraced eucalyptus but paid a severe price.

https://www.politico.eu/article/portugal...er-forest/

Australia has had horrendous eucalyptus fires during recent drought years after making the same mistakes that we have--too much fire suppression for too long, creating gargantuan tinder boxes.  Eucalyptus, like lodgepole pine, are adapted to fire to stay in balance.  Regular burning is natural.  Gargantuan trees are not.  Eucalyptus groves belong in areas where regular burning is possible.  They do not belong anywhere near residential homes or universities.

https://www.livescience.com/40583-austra...fires.html

Great info. I'm actually on a zoom call with client in Australia and complained about the eucalyptus trees they sent us. Apparently, the aborigines would burn the trees back regularly to keep them in check. That practice ended when the colonization started. . . . .

Interesting, I worked for the Forest Service Fire Crews during Summers at Stanford.  Never dealt with Eucalyptus fires, but saw plenty of wind driven crown fires exploding up steep slopes as the wind blew superheated air ahead of the fire and acres ignite all at once.  Not something you want to be in front of, to say nothing of So Cal brush fires burning through brush that hadn't burned for years.  That stuff was really ugly.  Suffice it to say sometimes the work was very hard and dangerous and the rest of the time it was a bunch of college guys cleaning up campgrounds and doing whatever the district thought of to pass the time until the next fire.

The BLM has an interagency fire center in Boise, and my crew was dispatched to fires all over the west from there.  The one I remember in California we called the Big Sur fire--later it was officially named the Marble Cone fire.  It was the largest fire in California history at the time (1977) --until fires of its size began to become commonplace.  Now it is barely in the top 20.  We fought on the northern end which came close to Carmel valley.  As our crews were trucked up Carmel Valley road people came out and cheered us as if we were liberating Paris.  It was just south of that region where saw a hillside of eucalyptus go up.  Today, there are some famous eucalyptus near Carmel that have been designated for protection, lining the road--all more than 100 years old.  The fire, fortunately, did not reach that far north.  The greatest danger we faced on the northern front was that some of my crew inhaled smoke from burning poison oak and had to be hospitalized.  We weren't used to poison oak, coming from Idaho.

Then as the fire shifted south, away from Carmel and toward Big Sur, we were shifted south with the fire.  We had a spectacular helicopter ride down the coastline to Big Sur, no more than a couple of hundred feet off the water.  We waved at people we could see on the highway and beaches.  On the southern zone my crew was guarding a ridge line at night, watching for embers flying overhead from the distant fire, when we saw the fire suddenly appear atop the ridge across the valley from us.  This was not eucalyptus but thick brush, in the Santa Lucia mountains.  The entire ridge ignited simultaneously to create one of the most frightening displays I ever saw.  Apparently the fire commanders did not expect it to spread so quickly at night and were worried it would cross the valley and similarly explode up our own ridge.  So they brought in the helicopters through the smoke for a dangerous night evacuation of us.  That ride was not as pleasant as the one down the Big Sur coastline, skimming above the capped waves. 

It was the best paying summer job I could find, and I managed to graduate from Stanford debt-free.

[81alum]

I put myself through Stanford as a BLM fire fighter (Bureau of Land Management, not the new acronym) working summers.  I have seen eucalyptus go up like torches--thirty seconds from the deep piles of bark tinder at the base to the crown.  I have seen them explode like bombs as the oils inside vaporize and light.  I have seen forests of them alight, creating thermals with mushroom clouds spewing burning embers thousands of feet away. 

I have also been on conifer fires and rangeland fires, and nothing compares to a eucalyptus fire.

Portugal, like California, embraced eucalyptus but paid a severe price.

https://www.politico.eu/article/portugal...er-forest/

Australia has had horrendous eucalyptus fires during recent drought years after making the same mistakes that we have--too much fire suppression for too long, creating gargantuan tinder boxes.  Eucalyptus, like lodgepole pine, are adapted to fire to stay in balance.  Regular burning is natural.  Gargantuan trees are not.  Eucalyptus groves belong in areas where regular burning is possible.  They do not belong anywhere near residential homes or universities.

https://www.livescience.com/40583-austra...fires.html

Great info. I'm actually on a zoom call with client in Australia and complained about the eucalyptus trees they sent us. Apparently, the aborigines would burn the trees back regularly to keep them in check. That practice ended when the colonization started. . . . .

Interesting, I worked for the Forest Service Fire Crews during Summers at Stanford.  Never dealt with Eucalyptus fires, but saw plenty of wind driven crown fires exploding up steep slopes as the wind blew superheated air ahead of the fire and acres ignite all at once.  Not something you want to be in front of, to say nothing of So Cal brush fires burning through brush that hadn't burned for years.  That stuff was really ugly.  Suffice it to say sometimes the work was very hard and dangerous and the rest of the time it was a bunch of college guys cleaning up campgrounds and doing whatever the district thought of to pass the time until the next fire.

The BLM has an interagency fire center in Boise, and my crew was dispatched to fires all over the west from there.  The one I remember in California we called the Big Sur fire--later it was officially named the Marble Cone fire.  It was the largest fire in California history at the time (1977) --until fires of its size began to become commonplace.  Now it is barely in the top 20.  We fought on the northern end which came close to Carmel valley.  As our crews were trucked up Carmel Valley road people came out and cheered us as if we were liberating Paris.  It was just south of that region where saw a hillside of eucalyptus go up.  Today, there are some famous eucalyptus near Carmel that have been designated for protection, lining the road--all more than 100 years old.  The fire, fortunately, did not reach that far north.  The greatest danger we faced on the northern front was that some of my crew inhaled smoke from burning poison oak and had to be hospitalized.  We weren't used to poison oak, coming from Idaho.

Then as the fire shifted south, away from Carmel and toward Big Sur, we were shifted south with the fire.  We had a spectacular helicopter ride down the coastline to Big Sur, no more than a couple of hundred feet off the water.  We waved at people we could see on the highway and beaches.  On the southern zone my crew was guarding a ridge line at night, watching for embers flying overhead from the distant fire, when we saw the fire suddenly appear atop the ridge across the valley from us.  This was not eucalyptus but thick brush, in the Santa Lucia mountains.  The entire ridge ignited simultaneously to create one of the most frightening displays I ever saw.  Apparently the fire commanders did not expect it to spread so quickly at night and were worried it would cross the valley and similarly explode up our own ridge.  So they brought in the helicopters through the smoke for a dangerous night evacuation of us.  That ride was not as pleasant as the one down the Big Sur coastline, skimming above the capped waves. 

It was the best paying summer job I could find, and I managed to graduate from Stanford debt-free.

[GK3]

I put myself through Stanford as a BLM fire fighter (Bureau of Land Management, not the new acronym) working summers.  I have seen eucalyptus go up like torches--thirty seconds from the deep piles of bark tinder at the base to the crown.  I have seen them explode like bombs as the oils inside vaporize and light.  I have seen forests of them alight, creating thermals with mushroom clouds spewing burning embers thousands of feet away. 

I have also been on conifer fires and rangeland fires, and nothing compares to a eucalyptus fire.

Portugal, like California, embraced eucalyptus but paid a severe price.

https://www.politico.eu/article/portugal...er-forest/

Australia has had horrendous eucalyptus fires during recent drought years after making the same mistakes that we have--too much fire suppression for too long, creating gargantuan tinder boxes.  Eucalyptus, like lodgepole pine, are adapted to fire to stay in balance.  Regular burning is natural.  Gargantuan trees are not.  Eucalyptus groves belong in areas where regular burning is possible.  They do not belong anywhere near residential homes or universities.

https://www.livescience.com/40583-austra...fires.html

Great info. I'm actually on a zoom call with client in Australia and complained about the eucalyptus trees they sent us. Apparently, the aborigines would burn the trees back regularly to keep them in check. That practice ended when the colonization started. . . . .

Interesting, I worked for the Forest Service Fire Crews during Summers at Stanford.  Never dealt with Eucalyptus fires, but saw plenty of wind driven crown fires exploding up steep slopes as the wind blew superheated air ahead of the fire and acres ignite all at once.  Not something you want to be in front of, to say nothing of So Cal brush fires burning through brush that hadn't burned for years.  That stuff was really ugly.  Suffice it to say sometimes the work was very hard and dangerous and the rest of the time it was a bunch of college guys cleaning up campgrounds and doing whatever the district thought of to pass the time until the next fire.

The BLM has an interagency fire center in Boise, and my crew was dispatched to fires all over the west from there.  The one I remember in California we called the Big Sur fire--later it was officially named the Marble Cone fire.  It was the largest fire in California history at the time (1977) --until fires of its size began to become commonplace.  Now it is barely in the top 20.  We fought on the northern end which came close to Carmel valley.  As our crews were trucked up Carmel Valley road people came out and cheered us as if we were liberating Paris.  It was just south of that region where saw a hillside of eucalyptus go up.  Today, there are some famous eucalyptus near Carmel that have been designated for protection, lining the road--all more than 100 years old.  The fire, fortunately, did not reach that far north.  The greatest danger we faced on the northern front was that some of my crew inhaled smoke from burning poison oak and had to be hospitalized.  We weren't used to poison oak, coming from Idaho.

Then as the fire shifted south, away from Carmel and toward Big Sur, we were shifted south with the fire.  We had a spectacular helicopter ride down the coastline to Big Sur, no more than a couple of hundred feet off the water.  We waved at people we could see on the highway and beaches.  On the southern zone my crew was guarding a ridge line at night, watching for embers flying overhead from the distant fire, when we saw the fire suddenly appear atop the ridge across the valley from us.  This was not eucalyptus but thick brush, in the Santa Lucia mountains.  The entire ridge ignited simultaneously to create one of the most frightening displays I ever saw.  Apparently the fire commanders did not expect it to spread so quickly at night and were worried it would cross the valley and similarly explode up our own ridge.  So they brought in the helicopters through the smoke for a dangerous night evacuation of us.  That ride was not as pleasant as the one down the Big Sur coastline, skimming above the capped waves. 

It was the best paying summer job I could find, and I managed to graduate from Stanford debt-free.

Burning poison oak is definitely something you want to avoid.  Those really allergic to it should stay very, very far away.

[GK3]

I put myself through Stanford as a BLM fire fighter (Bureau of Land Management, not the new acronym) working summers.  I have seen eucalyptus go up like torches--thirty seconds from the deep piles of bark tinder at the base to the crown.  I have seen them explode like bombs as the oils inside vaporize and light.  I have seen forests of them alight, creating thermals with mushroom clouds spewing burning embers thousands of feet away. 

I have also been on conifer fires and rangeland fires, and nothing compares to a eucalyptus fire.

Portugal, like California, embraced eucalyptus but paid a severe price.

https://www.politico.eu/article/portugal...er-forest/

Australia has had horrendous eucalyptus fires during recent drought years after making the same mistakes that we have--too much fire suppression for too long, creating gargantuan tinder boxes.  Eucalyptus, like lodgepole pine, are adapted to fire to stay in balance.  Regular burning is natural.  Gargantuan trees are not.  Eucalyptus groves belong in areas where regular burning is possible.  They do not belong anywhere near residential homes or universities.

https://www.livescience.com/40583-austra...fires.html

Great info. I'm actually on a zoom call with client in Australia and complained about the eucalyptus trees they sent us. Apparently, the aborigines would burn the trees back regularly to keep them in check. That practice ended when the colonization started. . . . .

Interesting, I worked for the Forest Service Fire Crews during Summers at Stanford.  Never dealt with Eucalyptus fires, but saw plenty of wind driven crown fires exploding up steep slopes as the wind blew superheated air ahead of the fire and acres ignite all at once.  Not something you want to be in front of, to say nothing of So Cal brush fires burning through brush that hadn't burned for years.  That stuff was really ugly.  Suffice it to say sometimes the work was very hard and dangerous and the rest of the time it was a bunch of college guys cleaning up campgrounds and doing whatever the district thought of to pass the time until the next fire.

The BLM has an interagency fire center in Boise, and my crew was dispatched to fires all over the west from there.  The one I remember in California we called the Big Sur fire--later it was officially named the Marble Cone fire.  It was the largest fire in California history at the time (1977) --until fires of its size began to become commonplace.  Now it is barely in the top 20.  We fought on the northern end which came close to Carmel valley.  As our crews were trucked up Carmel Valley road people came out and cheered us as if we were liberating Paris.  It was just south of that region where saw a hillside of eucalyptus go up.  Today, there are some famous eucalyptus near Carmel that have been designated for protection, lining the road--all more than 100 years old.  The fire, fortunately, did not reach that far north.  The greatest danger we faced on the northern front was that some of my crew inhaled smoke from burning poison oak and had to be hospitalized.  We weren't used to poison oak, coming from Idaho.

Then as the fire shifted south, away from Carmel and toward Big Sur, we were shifted south with the fire.  We had a spectacular helicopter ride down the coastline to Big Sur, no more than a couple of hundred feet off the water.  We waved at people we could see on the highway and beaches.  On the southern zone my crew was guarding a ridge line at night, watching for embers flying overhead from the distant fire, when we saw the fire suddenly appear atop the ridge across the valley from us.  This was not eucalyptus but thick brush, in the Santa Lucia mountains.  The entire ridge ignited simultaneously to create one of the most frightening displays I ever saw.  Apparently the fire commanders did not expect it to spread so quickly at night and were worried it would cross the valley and similarly explode up our own ridge.  So they brought in the helicopters through the smoke for a dangerous night evacuation of us.  That ride was not as pleasant as the one down the Big Sur coastline, skimming above the capped waves. 

It was the best paying summer job I could find, and I managed to graduate from Stanford debt-free.

Burning poison oak is definitely something you want to avoid.  Those really allergic to it should stay very, very far away.

[Goose]

Latest Update from Stanford:

We wanted to provide an update on steps Stanford is taking to address the condition of some of the trees on land along Alpine Road near Interstate 280.
 
The university has performed an initial review of the trees on land adjacent to the three trees that have already fallen. It was determined that some of the eucalyptus trees should be removed, and the university has retained a qualified tree crew that is beginning this work today (Thursday). 
 
The tree removal work is very difficult due to the saturated soil, distance from the street, and size of the trees. The work may also be quite visible given its location and the use of a crane to perform the work. The initial estimate is that at least seven trees will be removed and that the work will last into next week, although this is subject to change based on weather, equipment availability, and further evaluation of the conditions at the site.
 
We are coordinating our efforts with Santa Clara County and San Mateo County, and we are also in contact with other local officials to share updates and address community concerns. The current lane restriction on Alpine Road will remain in place to protect community members and the tree crew.
 
--Kelly
 
Kelly Kline
Associate Vice President, Local Government Affairs 
Office of Government Affairs, Stanford University

Nice, but it clearly shows it could easily have been done much earlier.

[Goose]

Latest Update from Stanford:

We wanted to provide an update on steps Stanford is taking to address the condition of some of the trees on land along Alpine Road near Interstate 280.
 
The university has performed an initial review of the trees on land adjacent to the three trees that have already fallen. It was determined that some of the eucalyptus trees should be removed, and the university has retained a qualified tree crew that is beginning this work today (Thursday). 
 
The tree removal work is very difficult due to the saturated soil, distance from the street, and size of the trees. The work may also be quite visible given its location and the use of a crane to perform the work. The initial estimate is that at least seven trees will be removed and that the work will last into next week, although this is subject to change based on weather, equipment availability, and further evaluation of the conditions at the site.
 
We are coordinating our efforts with Santa Clara County and San Mateo County, and we are also in contact with other local officials to share updates and address community concerns. The current lane restriction on Alpine Road will remain in place to protect community members and the tree crew.
 
--Kelly
 
Kelly Kline
Associate Vice President, Local Government Affairs 
Office of Government Affairs, Stanford University

Nice, but it clearly shows it could easily have been done much earlier.

[CowboyIndian]

 Ironically the Eucalyptus trees were put in to break the wind.

Ironically, that's the sum total of what Bernard Muir has been doing.

[CowboyIndian]

 Ironically the Eucalyptus trees were put in to break the wind.

Ironically, that's the sum total of what Bernard Muir has been doing.

[jonnyss]

i like eucalyptus and i like arboretums. sure, it's nice to emphasize native plants, but a world-class collection of plants is to me wonderful - whether diverse, like strybing arboretum and the rainforest in the sf academy of science, or focused like the huntington collection of cacti and succulents and like the stanford eucalyptus collection.

when folks speak of the eucalyptus widely planted by settlers, i expect you are speaking of eucalyptus globulus, the giant, invasive blue gum. stanford does have a few of those, but mainly stanford has dozens of species of eucalyptus, one of the best collections outside of australia.

eucalyptus citriodora has a particularly beautiful white trunk. there are several really nice ones near the greek theater in l.a. last time i was in santa cruz for the wharf to wharf at the end of july, there were, in the blocks near the water just north of the race start, dozens of eucalyptus ficifolia covered with their spectacular clusters of fire-engine-red flowers.

https://www.gardenia.net/plant/eucalyptus-citriodora
http://lh2treeid.blogspot.com/2010/03/eu...g-gum.html

an arboretum is like a museum for trees though maybe you have to learn a bit about different trees to appreciate them.

by analogy to the native issue, i do like local art. my favorite museum is the di rosa collection in napa, a collection of bay area artists (so local if not native american), such as roy de forest, joan brown, etc. fantastic! but i'll see and enjoy a non-native exhibit, eg van gogh & rousseau, or teamlab.

imo climate change is to blame for the various environmental catastrophes we are experiencing with the volatile weather of the last few years. it's too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry. don't blame the trees! cutting down trees is not going to make a significant dent in the ongoing worsening weather.

[jonnyss]

i like eucalyptus and i like arboretums. sure, it's nice to emphasize native plants, but a world-class collection of plants is to me wonderful - whether diverse, like strybing arboretum and the rainforest in the sf academy of science, or focused like the huntington collection of cacti and succulents and like the stanford eucalyptus collection.

when folks speak of the eucalyptus widely planted by settlers, i expect you are speaking of eucalyptus globulus, the giant, invasive blue gum. stanford does have a few of those, but mainly stanford has dozens of species of eucalyptus, one of the best collections outside of australia.

eucalyptus citriodora has a particularly beautiful white trunk. there are several really nice ones near the greek theater in l.a. last time i was in santa cruz for the wharf to wharf at the end of july, there were, in the blocks near the water just north of the race start, dozens of eucalyptus ficifolia covered with their spectacular clusters of fire-engine-red flowers.

https://www.gardenia.net/plant/eucalyptus-citriodora
http://lh2treeid.blogspot.com/2010/03/eu...g-gum.html

an arboretum is like a museum for trees though maybe you have to learn a bit about different trees to appreciate them.

by analogy to the native issue, i do like local art. my favorite museum is the di rosa collection in napa, a collection of bay area artists (so local if not native american), such as roy de forest, joan brown, etc. fantastic! but i'll see and enjoy a non-native exhibit, eg van gogh & rousseau, or teamlab.

imo climate change is to blame for the various environmental catastrophes we are experiencing with the volatile weather of the last few years. it's too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry. don't blame the trees! cutting down trees is not going to make a significant dent in the ongoing worsening weather.

[martyup]

Muir's breaking wind is also contributing to climate change.  Just another reason to can him.

[martyup]

Muir's breaking wind is also contributing to climate change.  Just another reason to can him.

[jacket3ree]

IMO the Cal Trans authority along 82 in Burlingame regarding trees should be limited to questions of traffic obstruction. It the city wants to do something that obstructs traffic, Cal Trans could possibly veto it. If the City wants to remove trees, that doesn't obstruct traffic and Cal Trans should stay out of it. It just isn't the States business IMO. It makes everything harder when you get more agencies involved, many of which have no obvious interest in the issue at hand.

I suspect some or perhaps many of those trees are within State right-of-way.

[jacket3ree]

IMO the Cal Trans authority along 82 in Burlingame regarding trees should be limited to questions of traffic obstruction. It the city wants to do something that obstructs traffic, Cal Trans could possibly veto it. If the City wants to remove trees, that doesn't obstruct traffic and Cal Trans should stay out of it. It just isn't the States business IMO. It makes everything harder when you get more agencies involved, many of which have no obvious interest in the issue at hand.

I suspect some or perhaps many of those trees are within State right-of-way.