[Goose]

This is possibly tangential, but IMO it is illustrative of the larger "administration" issue. The trees that fell on Alpine road were growing on Stanford land. Another one fell today and blocked a lane. I would imagine the family of the man who was killed will file a major lawsuit. How many people does Stanford have in the facilities department? Plenty. Somebody was undoubtedly responsible for making sure things like this didn't happen by examining the trees and removing those that were even a potential danger. They failed. Worse still, IMO, after four trees fell and one caused a death, Stanford didn't do anything. Another tree fell today, fortunately killing nobody, but that is just luck. Obviously there is a major issue there that should have been addressed, even if belatedly. Is anybody going to get fired? I doubt it.

Hiring a bunch of people that don't actually do anything is a typical bureaucratic method to increase you power, prestige, and salary. If nobody evaluates the performance of these organizations and makes them justify their existence with something other than verbiage, this is what you get. Then people wonder why nobody trusts Stanford when they propose some construction project. There is no possible excuse for this situation.

I don't want to read in to what you are saying here, but if you are accusing Stanford Facilities of general incompetence because some trees fell, I take exception. There is a reasonableness test that would apply to alleged negligence. How many trees do you think are on Stanford land?  Is it reasonable to expect none of them to fall during a cyclonic storm with 70 mph winds? What do you mean by no possible excuse for this situation?  Sure, if there were an arborist's report from five or ten years ago indicating specific trees that should be removed due to potential hazard and that report was ignored, and those trees indeed fell, that's one thing. Frankly I would be surprised if it is possible to have arborist reports for the sheer number of trees on Stanford land and keep those reports current.

People file lawsuits over all sorts of things both real and ridiculous.  I'd need to see specific evidence before making a blanket statement of negligence like I think you made here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Should I sue my neighbor because a gigantic tree branch fell on our side of the fence and dinged some stuff? Or should I have sued when his tall, mature Laurel tree fell in my backyard on a blue sky day, splitting the uprights between bedroom and detached garage right onto my pickup, because he had raised grade around the trunk, thereby leading to girdling? (That's a big no-no.)   No - that's why I have a chainsaw.  And some luck on my side.

Well, yes. I am accusing Stanford facilities of general incompetence in two particulars. First, it wasn't one tree that fell but four. These trees are along a major road that carries lots of traffic. They are relatively "mature" and several previously have fallen in the last two years. They have repeatedly closed the road when they did. You can see the cut trunks all along Alpine. It is difficult to believe that after seeing a pattern of trees falling that Stanford should not have inspected these trees regularly and removed those that looked like possible problems. The four trees in question are on the side of the creek, so their normally shallow root systems have no place to spread out in one direction. That is a risk right there. There were four of them. Hard to believe they were all "just fine". If Stanford has inspection reports that showed these trees had been recently "looked at" I might not be quite as judgemental, but given the removal of Eucalyptus trees SMC has done this year, I think it could easily be argued Stanford should have removed these trees as a simple precaution. I agree society is litigious. That is one reason why Stanford needs to be proactive. They hire the staff to do so, but in this case they did not act, despite ample evidence of risk. 

Second, and to me much worse, is the fact that after four trees fell, Stanford didn't have a crew out there getting rid of the rest of them. There wasn't wind or rain today. The tree that came down wasn't affected by "70 MPH winds". There was a problem, they knew it, and they didn't respond. Yes, I think that is "general incompetence". My neighbors do too, which might be even more serious problem for Stanford.

[Goose]

This is possibly tangential, but IMO it is illustrative of the larger "administration" issue. The trees that fell on Alpine road were growing on Stanford land. Another one fell today and blocked a lane. I would imagine the family of the man who was killed will file a major lawsuit. How many people does Stanford have in the facilities department? Plenty. Somebody was undoubtedly responsible for making sure things like this didn't happen by examining the trees and removing those that were even a potential danger. They failed. Worse still, IMO, after four trees fell and one caused a death, Stanford didn't do anything. Another tree fell today, fortunately killing nobody, but that is just luck. Obviously there is a major issue there that should have been addressed, even if belatedly. Is anybody going to get fired? I doubt it.

Hiring a bunch of people that don't actually do anything is a typical bureaucratic method to increase you power, prestige, and salary. If nobody evaluates the performance of these organizations and makes them justify their existence with something other than verbiage, this is what you get. Then people wonder why nobody trusts Stanford when they propose some construction project. There is no possible excuse for this situation.

I don't want to read in to what you are saying here, but if you are accusing Stanford Facilities of general incompetence because some trees fell, I take exception. There is a reasonableness test that would apply to alleged negligence. How many trees do you think are on Stanford land?  Is it reasonable to expect none of them to fall during a cyclonic storm with 70 mph winds? What do you mean by no possible excuse for this situation?  Sure, if there were an arborist's report from five or ten years ago indicating specific trees that should be removed due to potential hazard and that report was ignored, and those trees indeed fell, that's one thing. Frankly I would be surprised if it is possible to have arborist reports for the sheer number of trees on Stanford land and keep those reports current.

People file lawsuits over all sorts of things both real and ridiculous.  I'd need to see specific evidence before making a blanket statement of negligence like I think you made here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Should I sue my neighbor because a gigantic tree branch fell on our side of the fence and dinged some stuff? Or should I have sued when his tall, mature Laurel tree fell in my backyard on a blue sky day, splitting the uprights between bedroom and detached garage right onto my pickup, because he had raised grade around the trunk, thereby leading to girdling? (That's a big no-no.)   No - that's why I have a chainsaw.  And some luck on my side.

Well, yes. I am accusing Stanford facilities of general incompetence in two particulars. First, it wasn't one tree that fell but four. These trees are along a major road that carries lots of traffic. They are relatively "mature" and several previously have fallen in the last two years. They have repeatedly closed the road when they did. You can see the cut trunks all along Alpine. It is difficult to believe that after seeing a pattern of trees falling that Stanford should not have inspected these trees regularly and removed those that looked like possible problems. The four trees in question are on the side of the creek, so their normally shallow root systems have no place to spread out in one direction. That is a risk right there. There were four of them. Hard to believe they were all "just fine". If Stanford has inspection reports that showed these trees had been recently "looked at" I might not be quite as judgemental, but given the removal of Eucalyptus trees SMC has done this year, I think it could easily be argued Stanford should have removed these trees as a simple precaution. I agree society is litigious. That is one reason why Stanford needs to be proactive. They hire the staff to do so, but in this case they did not act, despite ample evidence of risk. 

Second, and to me much worse, is the fact that after four trees fell, Stanford didn't have a crew out there getting rid of the rest of them. There wasn't wind or rain today. The tree that came down wasn't affected by "70 MPH winds". There was a problem, they knew it, and they didn't respond. Yes, I think that is "general incompetence". My neighbors do too, which might be even more serious problem for Stanford.

[jacket3ree]

Thanks for the explanation Goose. Fair points. I will say that Stanford Facilities is essentially running a full-blown municipality.  That ain't easy, but Stanford does need to meet its responsibilities as a land owner.

Honest question: Would your neighbors be cool if Stanford cut down every tree located within an offset from the road equal to the height of each tree, as a precaution?  I've seen it cut both ways. There was a famous incident (famous among local public works types) between members of the public and Palo Alto's Public Works Director during the NYE 1995 storms.

[jacket3ree]

Thanks for the explanation Goose. Fair points. I will say that Stanford Facilities is essentially running a full-blown municipality.  That ain't easy, but Stanford does need to meet its responsibilities as a land owner.

Honest question: Would your neighbors be cool if Stanford cut down every tree located within an offset from the road equal to the height of each tree, as a precaution?  I've seen it cut both ways. There was a famous incident (famous among local public works types) between members of the public and Palo Alto's Public Works Director during the NYE 1995 storms.

[GK3]

This is possibly tangential, but IMO it is illustrative of the larger "administration" issue. The trees that fell on Alpine road were growing on Stanford land. Another one fell today and blocked a lane. I would imagine the family of the man who was killed will file a major lawsuit. How many people does Stanford have in the facilities department? Plenty. Somebody was undoubtedly responsible for making sure things like this didn't happen by examining the trees and removing those that were even a potential danger. They failed. Worse still, IMO, after four trees fell and one caused a death, Stanford didn't do anything. Another tree fell today, fortunately killing nobody, but that is just luck. Obviously there is a major issue there that should have been addressed, even if belatedly. Is anybody going to get fired? I doubt it.

Hiring a bunch of people that don't actually do anything is a typical bureaucratic method to increase you power, prestige, and salary. If nobody evaluates the performance of these organizations and makes them justify their existence with something other than verbiage, this is what you get. Then people wonder why nobody trusts Stanford when they propose some construction project. There is no possible excuse for this situation.

I don't want to read in to what you are saying here, but if you are accusing Stanford Facilities of general incompetence because some trees fell, I take exception. There is a reasonableness test that would apply to alleged negligence. How many trees do you think are on Stanford land?  Is it reasonable to expect none of them to fall during a cyclonic storm with 70 mph winds? What do you mean by no possible excuse for this situation?  Sure, if there were an arborist's report from five or ten years ago indicating specific trees that should be removed due to potential hazard and that report was ignored, and those trees indeed fell, that's one thing. Frankly I would be surprised if it is possible to have arborist reports for the sheer number of trees on Stanford land and keep those reports current.

People file lawsuits over all sorts of things both real and ridiculous.  I'd need to see specific evidence before making a blanket statement of negligence like I think you made here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Should I sue my neighbor because a gigantic tree branch fell on our side of the fence and dinged some stuff? Or should I have sued when his tall, mature Laurel tree fell in my backyard on a blue sky day, splitting the uprights between bedroom and detached garage right onto my pickup, because he had raised grade around the trunk, thereby leading to girdling? (That's a big no-no.)   No - that's why I have a chainsaw.  And some luck on my side.

Amen Jacketree!  

Weather is something man cannot control.  Years of dry weather, suddenly incessant rain, the ground softens, the winds blow and trees fall down and they fall down everywhere in these situations.  Maybe we should simply disallow trees.  A month ago we left to run some errands in the early afternoon, rain and more rain, we come back and three of our brobdingnagian old trees are on the ground, one just missing the house and the other two just missing our neighbors tent trailer and his car.  One just missed our house and our neighbors own tree wiped out his deer fence around his garden.  One other neighbor had trees go down, no one else on the street or area had trees go down.  Some sort of strong cyclonic wind apparently touched down, did the trees then left.  We have no one to sue, except maybe the Man Above.  Our neighbor and his wife understand the S*** happens and we now have a whole bunch of firewood we don't have to pay for unless you count the cost of renting the splitter.  At the edge of the property stand Redwoods, most second growth trees, but all still well over 100 feet high.  Fortunately none fell.  Sometimes stuff just happens, unfortunately too many legal eagles seem to need to find fault on the part of someone.
How does Stanford get away with the bicycle mess that occurs between every class change.  What happens if a gifted pianist his hit by another rider who is paying no attention and hurts his or her hand.  Now days, someone would probably sue.  It becomes a ludicrous exercise to try and protect everyone from everything and still exist.  
I can tell you that my class which matriculated in the mid 1950's graduated it would be called a miracle under todays rules.  Most or all of us would never have made to our senior years.
Common Sense has gone missing in action.

[GK3]

This is possibly tangential, but IMO it is illustrative of the larger "administration" issue. The trees that fell on Alpine road were growing on Stanford land. Another one fell today and blocked a lane. I would imagine the family of the man who was killed will file a major lawsuit. How many people does Stanford have in the facilities department? Plenty. Somebody was undoubtedly responsible for making sure things like this didn't happen by examining the trees and removing those that were even a potential danger. They failed. Worse still, IMO, after four trees fell and one caused a death, Stanford didn't do anything. Another tree fell today, fortunately killing nobody, but that is just luck. Obviously there is a major issue there that should have been addressed, even if belatedly. Is anybody going to get fired? I doubt it.

Hiring a bunch of people that don't actually do anything is a typical bureaucratic method to increase you power, prestige, and salary. If nobody evaluates the performance of these organizations and makes them justify their existence with something other than verbiage, this is what you get. Then people wonder why nobody trusts Stanford when they propose some construction project. There is no possible excuse for this situation.

I don't want to read in to what you are saying here, but if you are accusing Stanford Facilities of general incompetence because some trees fell, I take exception. There is a reasonableness test that would apply to alleged negligence. How many trees do you think are on Stanford land?  Is it reasonable to expect none of them to fall during a cyclonic storm with 70 mph winds? What do you mean by no possible excuse for this situation?  Sure, if there were an arborist's report from five or ten years ago indicating specific trees that should be removed due to potential hazard and that report was ignored, and those trees indeed fell, that's one thing. Frankly I would be surprised if it is possible to have arborist reports for the sheer number of trees on Stanford land and keep those reports current.

People file lawsuits over all sorts of things both real and ridiculous.  I'd need to see specific evidence before making a blanket statement of negligence like I think you made here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Should I sue my neighbor because a gigantic tree branch fell on our side of the fence and dinged some stuff? Or should I have sued when his tall, mature Laurel tree fell in my backyard on a blue sky day, splitting the uprights between bedroom and detached garage right onto my pickup, because he had raised grade around the trunk, thereby leading to girdling? (That's a big no-no.)   No - that's why I have a chainsaw.  And some luck on my side.

Amen Jacketree!  

Weather is something man cannot control.  Years of dry weather, suddenly incessant rain, the ground softens, the winds blow and trees fall down and they fall down everywhere in these situations.  Maybe we should simply disallow trees.  A month ago we left to run some errands in the early afternoon, rain and more rain, we come back and three of our brobdingnagian old trees are on the ground, one just missing the house and the other two just missing our neighbors tent trailer and his car.  One just missed our house and our neighbors own tree wiped out his deer fence around his garden.  One other neighbor had trees go down, no one else on the street or area had trees go down.  Some sort of strong cyclonic wind apparently touched down, did the trees then left.  We have no one to sue, except maybe the Man Above.  Our neighbor and his wife understand the S*** happens and we now have a whole bunch of firewood we don't have to pay for unless you count the cost of renting the splitter.  At the edge of the property stand Redwoods, most second growth trees, but all still well over 100 feet high.  Fortunately none fell.  Sometimes stuff just happens, unfortunately too many legal eagles seem to need to find fault on the part of someone.
How does Stanford get away with the bicycle mess that occurs between every class change.  What happens if a gifted pianist his hit by another rider who is paying no attention and hurts his or her hand.  Now days, someone would probably sue.  It becomes a ludicrous exercise to try and protect everyone from everything and still exist.  
I can tell you that my class which matriculated in the mid 1950's graduated it would be called a miracle under todays rules.  Most or all of us would never have made to our senior years.
Common Sense has gone missing in action.

[Goose]

Thanks for the explanation Goose. Fair points. I will say that Stanford Facilities is essentially running a full-blown municipality.  That ain't easy, but Stanford does need to meet its responsibilities as a land owner.

It is indeed a full-blown municipality, and always has been. It is not easy to run, but it is also a "private" entity. The residents of the municipality have no input (basically) on how it is run. IMO that leads to no (or at least few) checks on the system. I think in times (distant) past Stanford basically could do whatever it wanted and nobody else cared. From about 1970 onward that has become progressively less true.

Honest question: Would your neighbors be cool if Stanford cut down every tree located within an offset from the road equal to the height of each tree, as a precaution?  I've seen it cut both ways. There was a famous incident (famous among local public works types) between members of the public and Palo Alto's Public Works Director during the NYE 1995 storms.

A great question, as there are literally many "tree huggers" in the community. I am pretty sure that if the trees to be removed were all Eucalyptus it would be fine. Everybody has become convinced that these trees are dangerous from both a fire point of view and a "fall down" point of view. There are so many examples of the latter in the last few years there is no doubt it is a "clear and present danger". In fact the county has clear-cut some areas of Eucalyptus locally that arguably didn't need it. Nobody I know of complained.

San Mateo County has in fact made it easy to do.
https://www.smcgov.org/planning/news/per...uly-1-2023
Obviously the trees in question were well within 30 feet of the roadway. I do think there would be some questions raised about oaks that are near the road but far from the creek. Bank erosion can make any tree dangerous in high winds. There are a few Monterrey Pines that arguably should also go, and are covered by the above exemption. Most of the oaks are relatively short and therefore would not be threatened.

In fairness, it must be said that several large trees on the other side of Alpine road, away from the creek, have fallen in the past few years. These are on County property I believe. They are not Eucalyptus and not subject to bank erosion. The County has in fact done a bit of cutting to mitigate this risk, but arguably not enough. I fully expect that will change. The public likes the trees, but it is clear they are a hazard.

[Goose]

Thanks for the explanation Goose. Fair points. I will say that Stanford Facilities is essentially running a full-blown municipality.  That ain't easy, but Stanford does need to meet its responsibilities as a land owner.

It is indeed a full-blown municipality, and always has been. It is not easy to run, but it is also a "private" entity. The residents of the municipality have no input (basically) on how it is run. IMO that leads to no (or at least few) checks on the system. I think in times (distant) past Stanford basically could do whatever it wanted and nobody else cared. From about 1970 onward that has become progressively less true.

Honest question: Would your neighbors be cool if Stanford cut down every tree located within an offset from the road equal to the height of each tree, as a precaution?  I've seen it cut both ways. There was a famous incident (famous among local public works types) between members of the public and Palo Alto's Public Works Director during the NYE 1995 storms.

A great question, as there are literally many "tree huggers" in the community. I am pretty sure that if the trees to be removed were all Eucalyptus it would be fine. Everybody has become convinced that these trees are dangerous from both a fire point of view and a "fall down" point of view. There are so many examples of the latter in the last few years there is no doubt it is a "clear and present danger". In fact the county has clear-cut some areas of Eucalyptus locally that arguably didn't need it. Nobody I know of complained.

San Mateo County has in fact made it easy to do.
https://www.smcgov.org/planning/news/per...uly-1-2023
Obviously the trees in question were well within 30 feet of the roadway. I do think there would be some questions raised about oaks that are near the road but far from the creek. Bank erosion can make any tree dangerous in high winds. There are a few Monterrey Pines that arguably should also go, and are covered by the above exemption. Most of the oaks are relatively short and therefore would not be threatened.

In fairness, it must be said that several large trees on the other side of Alpine road, away from the creek, have fallen in the past few years. These are on County property I believe. They are not Eucalyptus and not subject to bank erosion. The County has in fact done a bit of cutting to mitigate this risk, but arguably not enough. I fully expect that will change. The public likes the trees, but it is clear they are a hazard.

[2006alum]

I've removed Stanford from my estate plans. What happened at the law school, especially the lack of any consequences for ringleader Dean Steinbach, was the last straw for me.

Without digging into the political valences of this saga, what makes you think there are a lack of consequences? FWIW, she's presently on administrative leave and the Dean's letter indicated it could not yet comment on what the ultimate resolution would be. And as a second FWIW, both of the deans involved in the YLS "traphouse" saga were reassigned to new positions in the aftermath of that scandal, which is my best guess for what will happen here. One rather soon thereafter decamped for another institution, and my guess is that Steinbach will too...

[2006alum]

I've removed Stanford from my estate plans. What happened at the law school, especially the lack of any consequences for ringleader Dean Steinbach, was the last straw for me.

Without digging into the political valences of this saga, what makes you think there are a lack of consequences? FWIW, she's presently on administrative leave and the Dean's letter indicated it could not yet comment on what the ultimate resolution would be. And as a second FWIW, both of the deans involved in the YLS "traphouse" saga were reassigned to new positions in the aftermath of that scandal, which is my best guess for what will happen here. One rather soon thereafter decamped for another institution, and my guess is that Steinbach will too...

[cardcrimson]

This is possibly tangential, but IMO it is illustrative of the larger "administration" issue. The trees that fell on Alpine road were growing on Stanford land. Another one fell today and blocked a lane. I would imagine the family of the man who was killed will file a major lawsuit. How many people does Stanford have in the facilities department? Plenty. Somebody was undoubtedly responsible for making sure things like this didn't happen by examining the trees and removing those that were even a potential danger. They failed. Worse still, IMO, after four trees fell and one caused a death, Stanford didn't do anything. Another tree fell today, fortunately killing nobody, but that is just luck. Obviously there is a major issue there that should have been addressed, even if belatedly. Is anybody going to get fired? I doubt it.

Hiring a bunch of people that don't actually do anything is a typical bureaucratic method to increase you power, prestige, and salary. If nobody evaluates the performance of these organizations and makes them justify their existence with something other than verbiage, this is what you get. Then people wonder why nobody trusts Stanford when they propose some construction project. There is no possible excuse for this situation.

Force majeure. . .. .

Several hundred year old trees fall under very rare high winds after torrential rains. Pretty difficult to blame the maintenance guy, especially as the trees most certainly predated the roads.

---

This is possibly tangential, but IMO it is illustrative of the larger "administration" issue. The trees that fell on Alpine road were growing on Stanford land. Another one fell today and blocked a lane. I would imagine the family of the man who was killed will file a major lawsuit. How many people does Stanford have in the facilities department? Plenty. Somebody was undoubtedly responsible for making sure things like this didn't happen by examining the trees and removing those that were even a potential danger. They failed. Worse still, IMO, after four trees fell and one caused a death, Stanford didn't do anything. Another tree fell today, fortunately killing nobody, but that is just luck. Obviously there is a major issue there that should have been addressed, even if belatedly. Is anybody going to get fired? I doubt it.

Hiring a bunch of people that don't actually do anything is a typical bureaucratic method to increase you power, prestige, and salary. If nobody evaluates the performance of these organizations and makes them justify their existence with something other than verbiage, this is what you get. Then people wonder why nobody trusts Stanford when they propose some construction project. There is no possible excuse for this situation.

I don't want to read in to what you are saying here, but if you are accusing Stanford Facilities of general incompetence because some trees fell, I take exception. There is a reasonableness test that would apply to alleged negligence. How many trees do you think are on Stanford land?  Is it reasonable to expect none of them to fall during a cyclonic storm with 70 mph winds? What do you mean by no possible excuse for this situation?  Sure, if there were an arborist's report from five or ten years ago indicating specific trees that should be removed due to potential hazard and that report was ignored, and those trees indeed fell, that's one thing. Frankly I would be surprised if it is possible to have arborist reports for the sheer number of trees on Stanford land and keep those reports current.

People file lawsuits over all sorts of things both real and ridiculous.  I'd need to see specific evidence before making a blanket statement of negligence like I think you made here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Should I sue my neighbor because a gigantic tree branch fell on our side of the fence and dinged some stuff? Or should I have sued when his tall, mature Laurel tree fell in my backyard on a blue sky day, splitting the uprights between bedroom and detached garage right onto my pickup, because he had raised grade around the trunk, thereby leading to girdling? (That's a big no-no.)   No - that's why I have a chainsaw.  And some luck on my side.

Well, yes. I am accusing Stanford facilities of general incompetence in two particulars. First, it wasn't one tree that fell but four. These trees are along a major road that carries lots of traffic. They are relatively "mature" and several previously have fallen in the last two years. They have repeatedly closed the road when they did. You can see the cut trunks all along Alpine. It is difficult to believe that after seeing a pattern of trees falling that Stanford should not have inspected these trees regularly and removed those that looked like possible problems. The four trees in question are on the side of the creek, so their normally shallow root systems have no place to spread out in one direction. That is a risk right there. There were four of them. Hard to believe they were all "just fine". If Stanford has inspection reports that showed these trees had been recently "looked at" I might not be quite as judgemental, but given the removal of Eucalyptus trees SMC has done this year, I think it could easily be argued Stanford should have removed these trees as a simple precaution. I agree society is litigious. That is one reason why Stanford needs to be proactive. They hire the staff to do so, but in this case they did not act, despite ample evidence of risk. 

Second, and to me much worse, is the fact that after four trees fell, Stanford didn't have a crew out there getting rid of the rest of them. There wasn't wind or rain today. The tree that came down wasn't affected by "70 MPH winds". There was a problem, they knew it, and they didn't respond. Yes, I think that is "general incompetence". My neighbors do too, which might be even more serious problem for Stanford.

Blue sky day a couple of days ago. There was a story on the morning news of a massive tree in someone's front yard that simply fell, crushing the house. Fortunately, no one died. Old trees sometimes just fall. It's been a part of nature for billions of years. Blame humanity for building roads through them and homes next to them.

And as for getting rid of the rest of them, in Contra Costa, I can't take down a heritage oak (or tree, I think) without prior county approval. I'd imagine Santa Clara (or even San Mateo) has similar ordinances.

---

Should have read the rest of the posts before I added mine, as many similar thoughts were stated previously.  Still, some good discussion.

[cardcrimson]

This is possibly tangential, but IMO it is illustrative of the larger "administration" issue. The trees that fell on Alpine road were growing on Stanford land. Another one fell today and blocked a lane. I would imagine the family of the man who was killed will file a major lawsuit. How many people does Stanford have in the facilities department? Plenty. Somebody was undoubtedly responsible for making sure things like this didn't happen by examining the trees and removing those that were even a potential danger. They failed. Worse still, IMO, after four trees fell and one caused a death, Stanford didn't do anything. Another tree fell today, fortunately killing nobody, but that is just luck. Obviously there is a major issue there that should have been addressed, even if belatedly. Is anybody going to get fired? I doubt it.

Hiring a bunch of people that don't actually do anything is a typical bureaucratic method to increase you power, prestige, and salary. If nobody evaluates the performance of these organizations and makes them justify their existence with something other than verbiage, this is what you get. Then people wonder why nobody trusts Stanford when they propose some construction project. There is no possible excuse for this situation.

Force majeure. . .. .

Several hundred year old trees fall under very rare high winds after torrential rains. Pretty difficult to blame the maintenance guy, especially as the trees most certainly predated the roads.

---

This is possibly tangential, but IMO it is illustrative of the larger "administration" issue. The trees that fell on Alpine road were growing on Stanford land. Another one fell today and blocked a lane. I would imagine the family of the man who was killed will file a major lawsuit. How many people does Stanford have in the facilities department? Plenty. Somebody was undoubtedly responsible for making sure things like this didn't happen by examining the trees and removing those that were even a potential danger. They failed. Worse still, IMO, after four trees fell and one caused a death, Stanford didn't do anything. Another tree fell today, fortunately killing nobody, but that is just luck. Obviously there is a major issue there that should have been addressed, even if belatedly. Is anybody going to get fired? I doubt it.

Hiring a bunch of people that don't actually do anything is a typical bureaucratic method to increase you power, prestige, and salary. If nobody evaluates the performance of these organizations and makes them justify their existence with something other than verbiage, this is what you get. Then people wonder why nobody trusts Stanford when they propose some construction project. There is no possible excuse for this situation.

I don't want to read in to what you are saying here, but if you are accusing Stanford Facilities of general incompetence because some trees fell, I take exception. There is a reasonableness test that would apply to alleged negligence. How many trees do you think are on Stanford land?  Is it reasonable to expect none of them to fall during a cyclonic storm with 70 mph winds? What do you mean by no possible excuse for this situation?  Sure, if there were an arborist's report from five or ten years ago indicating specific trees that should be removed due to potential hazard and that report was ignored, and those trees indeed fell, that's one thing. Frankly I would be surprised if it is possible to have arborist reports for the sheer number of trees on Stanford land and keep those reports current.

People file lawsuits over all sorts of things both real and ridiculous.  I'd need to see specific evidence before making a blanket statement of negligence like I think you made here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Should I sue my neighbor because a gigantic tree branch fell on our side of the fence and dinged some stuff? Or should I have sued when his tall, mature Laurel tree fell in my backyard on a blue sky day, splitting the uprights between bedroom and detached garage right onto my pickup, because he had raised grade around the trunk, thereby leading to girdling? (That's a big no-no.)   No - that's why I have a chainsaw.  And some luck on my side.

Well, yes. I am accusing Stanford facilities of general incompetence in two particulars. First, it wasn't one tree that fell but four. These trees are along a major road that carries lots of traffic. They are relatively "mature" and several previously have fallen in the last two years. They have repeatedly closed the road when they did. You can see the cut trunks all along Alpine. It is difficult to believe that after seeing a pattern of trees falling that Stanford should not have inspected these trees regularly and removed those that looked like possible problems. The four trees in question are on the side of the creek, so their normally shallow root systems have no place to spread out in one direction. That is a risk right there. There were four of them. Hard to believe they were all "just fine". If Stanford has inspection reports that showed these trees had been recently "looked at" I might not be quite as judgemental, but given the removal of Eucalyptus trees SMC has done this year, I think it could easily be argued Stanford should have removed these trees as a simple precaution. I agree society is litigious. That is one reason why Stanford needs to be proactive. They hire the staff to do so, but in this case they did not act, despite ample evidence of risk. 

Second, and to me much worse, is the fact that after four trees fell, Stanford didn't have a crew out there getting rid of the rest of them. There wasn't wind or rain today. The tree that came down wasn't affected by "70 MPH winds". There was a problem, they knew it, and they didn't respond. Yes, I think that is "general incompetence". My neighbors do too, which might be even more serious problem for Stanford.

Blue sky day a couple of days ago. There was a story on the morning news of a massive tree in someone's front yard that simply fell, crushing the house. Fortunately, no one died. Old trees sometimes just fall. It's been a part of nature for billions of years. Blame humanity for building roads through them and homes next to them.

And as for getting rid of the rest of them, in Contra Costa, I can't take down a heritage oak (or tree, I think) without prior county approval. I'd imagine Santa Clara (or even San Mateo) has similar ordinances.

---

Should have read the rest of the posts before I added mine, as many similar thoughts were stated previously.  Still, some good discussion.

[martyup]

Yes, appropriate to this thread, there is much bureaucracy involved in removing trees in most California counties.  You probably would be required to submit an EIR ($$$).  You at least would be required to submit a landscape plan stamped by a licensed landscape architect ($$).  Big fines are imposed if trees are removed without the proper permits ($$$$).  In Santa Barbara County, if you take down an oak tree you have to replace it with 10 oaks elsewhere on the property ($$$). There is a vast administration just waiting to process your application to remove a tree, and another vast administration just waiting to fine you if you do it without a permit. This is the lovely society that we have created.

[martyup]

Yes, appropriate to this thread, there is much bureaucracy involved in removing trees in most California counties.  You probably would be required to submit an EIR ($$$).  You at least would be required to submit a landscape plan stamped by a licensed landscape architect ($$).  Big fines are imposed if trees are removed without the proper permits ($$$$).  In Santa Barbara County, if you take down an oak tree you have to replace it with 10 oaks elsewhere on the property ($$$). There is a vast administration just waiting to process your application to remove a tree, and another vast administration just waiting to fine you if you do it without a permit. This is the lovely society that we have created.

[Goose]

All these points about regulations are good ones. However, in this case my post included a link showing that San Mateo County has removed all such requirements for the trees in question. This had been true for at least two years. None of the "bureaucratic" restraints were operative. That justification is therefore totally bogus.

Regarding the argument that "trees fall in the forest", I am quite aware of it. I have a great example in my own yard from the most recent storm. However, Stanford's situation along Alpine road is markedly different. They have several years of recent experience with trees falling onto the roadway and blocking it. One example happened during fire season when there was some threat the fire would come "over the hill". Alpine Road is an evacuation route. Stanford is also aware that the 2017 flood repairs along Alpine Road required the removal of several Eucalyptus trees as fall hazards.

The average homeowner is not going to have trees falling in his yard year after year. He can't generally foresee a tree falling unless it is "obviously" weakened in a manner the "average" person should recognize. Force Majeure is a reasonable excuse only if it is not a foreseeable event. This event was eminently foreseeable, because it had happened repeatedly with increasing frequency. It is true these trees were planted quite a while ago. It is equally true that Alpine Road has been a major thoroughfare for a very long time, and the trees, when planted, were much smaller. The creek has also shifted it's banks enough to make what was reasonably safe 50 years ago no longer in that category. For these reasons, I think Stanford should have acted to remove the hazard.

EDIT:
An update from Stanford:

Good evening,

Thank you for your note.

The university has performed an initial review of the trees on Stanford land adjacent to the three trees that have already fallen. The trees are very challenging to reach for tree crews due to the saturated soil, distance from the street, and size of the trees. Stanford is reaching out to well-equipped service providers to better understand the logistics of removing hazardous tree conditions.

In the meantime, we are in contact with our county partners to share updates and coordinate work in the area. San Mateo County is working with the California Highway Patrol to place cones and detour signs restricting access to the lane closest to the creek on Alpine Road.

Thanks,

Shweta
Shweta Bhatnagar
Senior Director, Government Affairs
Office of Government Affairs
Stanford University
650-723-4708 |shwetab@stanford.edu

This is in reply to a neighbor, not me personally. IMO, Res ipsa loquitur.
null

[Goose]

All these points about regulations are good ones. However, in this case my post included a link showing that San Mateo County has removed all such requirements for the trees in question. This had been true for at least two years. None of the "bureaucratic" restraints were operative. That justification is therefore totally bogus.

Regarding the argument that "trees fall in the forest", I am quite aware of it. I have a great example in my own yard from the most recent storm. However, Stanford's situation along Alpine road is markedly different. They have several years of recent experience with trees falling onto the roadway and blocking it. One example happened during fire season when there was some threat the fire would come "over the hill". Alpine Road is an evacuation route. Stanford is also aware that the 2017 flood repairs along Alpine Road required the removal of several Eucalyptus trees as fall hazards.

The average homeowner is not going to have trees falling in his yard year after year. He can't generally foresee a tree falling unless it is "obviously" weakened in a manner the "average" person should recognize. Force Majeure is a reasonable excuse only if it is not a foreseeable event. This event was eminently foreseeable, because it had happened repeatedly with increasing frequency. It is true these trees were planted quite a while ago. It is equally true that Alpine Road has been a major thoroughfare for a very long time, and the trees, when planted, were much smaller. The creek has also shifted it's banks enough to make what was reasonably safe 50 years ago no longer in that category. For these reasons, I think Stanford should have acted to remove the hazard.

EDIT:
An update from Stanford:

Good evening,

Thank you for your note.

The university has performed an initial review of the trees on Stanford land adjacent to the three trees that have already fallen. The trees are very challenging to reach for tree crews due to the saturated soil, distance from the street, and size of the trees. Stanford is reaching out to well-equipped service providers to better understand the logistics of removing hazardous tree conditions.

In the meantime, we are in contact with our county partners to share updates and coordinate work in the area. San Mateo County is working with the California Highway Patrol to place cones and detour signs restricting access to the lane closest to the creek on Alpine Road.

Thanks,

Shweta
Shweta Bhatnagar
Senior Director, Government Affairs
Office of Government Affairs
Stanford University
650-723-4708 |shwetab@stanford.edu

This is in reply to a neighbor, not me personally. IMO, Res ipsa loquitur.
null

[winflop]

I've removed Stanford from my estate plans. What happened at the law school, especially the lack of any consequences for ringleader Dean Steinbach, was the last straw for me.

Without digging into the political valences of this saga, what makes you think there are a lack of consequences? FWIW, she's presently on administrative leave and the Dean's letter indicated it could not yet comment on what the ultimate resolution would be. And as a second FWIW, both of the deans involved in the YLS "traphouse" saga were reassigned to new positions in the aftermath of that scandal, which is my best guess for what will happen here. One rather soon thereafter decamped for another institution, and my guess is that Steinbach will too...

This isn't about politics. This is about abhorrent behavior toward an invited guest. Steinbach should have been fired immediately, the students should have faced disciplinary actions, and the dean's/president's apology should have been much more forceful about the University's support for free speech and civil discourse (see University of Chicago for how it's done).

Like I said, this was the last straw. There's a long list.

[winflop]

I've removed Stanford from my estate plans. What happened at the law school, especially the lack of any consequences for ringleader Dean Steinbach, was the last straw for me.

Without digging into the political valences of this saga, what makes you think there are a lack of consequences? FWIW, she's presently on administrative leave and the Dean's letter indicated it could not yet comment on what the ultimate resolution would be. And as a second FWIW, both of the deans involved in the YLS "traphouse" saga were reassigned to new positions in the aftermath of that scandal, which is my best guess for what will happen here. One rather soon thereafter decamped for another institution, and my guess is that Steinbach will too...

This isn't about politics. This is about abhorrent behavior toward an invited guest. Steinbach should have been fired immediately, the students should have faced disciplinary actions, and the dean's/president's apology should have been much more forceful about the University's support for free speech and civil discourse (see University of Chicago for how it's done).

Like I said, this was the last straw. There's a long list.

[BostonCard]

On trees:
Burlingame High School was on lockdown last week because of the threat of trees.  Nobody was hurt, thankfully.

Driving south on El Camino, there is a black pick-up truck (yours, jacketree?) that was totaled because a tree fell on it.

Two sections of our fence were blown clean into the neighbors yard.

We had a tremendous storm last week after a generational wet season that left the ground saturated.  In some ways, I'm surprised that there weren't more injuries and damage.  A death due to the storm is tragic, but I think we would have a hard time ascribing that to any institution's negligence.  I certainly wasn't thinking that BHS would have been negligent had any damage or injury occurred from the storms' impact on BHS' trees.

BC

---

I do think the law school protest is related to this topic.  What I see is a movement away from fundamental rights that have been integral in American society.  In the case of the fraternities and Katie Meyers, the right to due process has been severely impinged.  In the case of the "hecklers' veto" at the law school, the right to free speech was under attack, which attack was supported by a Stanford administrator.  When these fundamental rights are abridged, people lose faith in justice.  This causes despair.  Both the fraternity President and Katie Meyer were clearly inflicted with despair by the injustices resulting from actions by Stanford administrators.  It's no fun to live in society with no justice, especially when the focus of the injustice is pointed at people just trying to have fun.  It's no wonder why people are saying Stanford hates fun.

This isn't about politics. This is about abhorrent behavior toward an invited guest. Steinbach should have been fired immediately, the students should have faced disciplinary actions, and the dean's/president's apology should have been much more forceful about the University's support for free speech and civil discourse (see University of Chicago for how it's done).

Like I said, this was the last straw. There's a long list.

It's weird that in the very same thread, some people decry the lack of due process to the fraternities and Katie Meyer (though I am struggling to see where Meyer wasn't given due process, since as best I can tell, she was just given a notification that there was a hearing, and the "process", due or not, had just barely begun), while other people are demanding the immediate dismissal of a faculty member, and calling for students to face disciplinary action (hopefully with due process, right)?

How often are we demanding justice and due process for ourselves, people like us, and people we agree with, while denying it to others, especially people we disagree with?

A logically consistent thread (and I am cognizant that we are talking about different people here) would demand that the people involved be accorded due process:

• disciplinary actions be taken according to established rules and procedures
  
• that those accused have the right to a defense, including representation
  
• that those accused know what they are accused of
  
• that those accused have a right to confront their accusers
  
• that those accused have a right to examine the evidence against them and be able to present exculpatory evidence
  
• that the accused have a right to a fair trial
  
• that all these protections be applied fairly, regardless of who the accused is or what they believe in
  

The principles should apply to student discipline, to fraternities, to faculty members, and even to the University President (who, I believe, in another thread, a substantial number of people have suggested should be relieved of his duties)

BC

[BostonCard]

On trees:
Burlingame High School was on lockdown last week because of the threat of trees.  Nobody was hurt, thankfully.

Driving south on El Camino, there is a black pick-up truck (yours, jacketree?) that was totaled because a tree fell on it.

Two sections of our fence were blown clean into the neighbors yard.

We had a tremendous storm last week after a generational wet season that left the ground saturated.  In some ways, I'm surprised that there weren't more injuries and damage.  A death due to the storm is tragic, but I think we would have a hard time ascribing that to any institution's negligence.  I certainly wasn't thinking that BHS would have been negligent had any damage or injury occurred from the storms' impact on BHS' trees.

BC

---

I do think the law school protest is related to this topic.  What I see is a movement away from fundamental rights that have been integral in American society.  In the case of the fraternities and Katie Meyers, the right to due process has been severely impinged.  In the case of the "hecklers' veto" at the law school, the right to free speech was under attack, which attack was supported by a Stanford administrator.  When these fundamental rights are abridged, people lose faith in justice.  This causes despair.  Both the fraternity President and Katie Meyer were clearly inflicted with despair by the injustices resulting from actions by Stanford administrators.  It's no fun to live in society with no justice, especially when the focus of the injustice is pointed at people just trying to have fun.  It's no wonder why people are saying Stanford hates fun.

This isn't about politics. This is about abhorrent behavior toward an invited guest. Steinbach should have been fired immediately, the students should have faced disciplinary actions, and the dean's/president's apology should have been much more forceful about the University's support for free speech and civil discourse (see University of Chicago for how it's done).

Like I said, this was the last straw. There's a long list.

It's weird that in the very same thread, some people decry the lack of due process to the fraternities and Katie Meyer (though I am struggling to see where Meyer wasn't given due process, since as best I can tell, she was just given a notification that there was a hearing, and the "process", due or not, had just barely begun), while other people are demanding the immediate dismissal of a faculty member, and calling for students to face disciplinary action (hopefully with due process, right)?

How often are we demanding justice and due process for ourselves, people like us, and people we agree with, while denying it to others, especially people we disagree with?

A logically consistent thread (and I am cognizant that we are talking about different people here) would demand that the people involved be accorded due process:

• disciplinary actions be taken according to established rules and procedures
  
• that those accused have the right to a defense, including representation
  
• that those accused know what they are accused of
  
• that those accused have a right to confront their accusers
  
• that those accused have a right to examine the evidence against them and be able to present exculpatory evidence
  
• that the accused have a right to a fair trial
  
• that all these protections be applied fairly, regardless of who the accused is or what they believe in
  

The principles should apply to student discipline, to fraternities, to faculty members, and even to the University President (who, I believe, in another thread, a substantial number of people have suggested should be relieved of his duties)

BC

[jacket3ree]

You live in Burlingame, right BC?

That wasn't my truck. Years ago, I donated the carcass of a white pickup with 300,000 miles on it that could no longer pass smog.

There are plans to take down the El Camino Eucalyptus grove, but it is taking years.

Caltrans is involved

Like much of Australia's native flora and fauna, Eucalyptus are deadly.  If I drove that stretch of the King's Highway even more than I already do, I'd want those trees gone immediately.  But as with anything in the public domain, not everyone agrees.

That Tuesday was bonkers. I'm encamped in a construction trailer that sits hard by the west abutment of the San Mateo Bridge. What a day. Show up early for a rain or shine site walk.  Police activity adjacent to the trailer prevents entry.  We scramble, but are back in the trailer later in the day. The wind was howling and the bridge was groaning. Our CM went to school in South Dakota and said it reminded him of the sound right before a tornado. No more construction, so everyone went home, but I have plenty to do otherwise and kept at it alone, with the wifi and snacks. Power goes out.  Someone is telling me to go home, so I packed up and headed to the car in what felt like a driving hailstorm.  The massive high tension power line that is just south of the bridge crosses the trailer/parking lot overhead.  The catenary curves of the lines were horizontal.  I'm soaked and dumping stuff in my trunk when I spot the public restroom doors wide open.  Trying to be a decent citizen, I jog through the rain and wind to close the doors, remembering upon arrival that without a key, I have no way to bolt them shut from the exterior.  Running back to the car an airborne 55 gallon steel drum nearly takes me out.  So I wasn't too surprised by all the downed trees.

[jacket3ree]

You live in Burlingame, right BC?

That wasn't my truck. Years ago, I donated the carcass of a white pickup with 300,000 miles on it that could no longer pass smog.

There are plans to take down the El Camino Eucalyptus grove, but it is taking years.

Caltrans is involved

Like much of Australia's native flora and fauna, Eucalyptus are deadly.  If I drove that stretch of the King's Highway even more than I already do, I'd want those trees gone immediately.  But as with anything in the public domain, not everyone agrees.

That Tuesday was bonkers. I'm encamped in a construction trailer that sits hard by the west abutment of the San Mateo Bridge. What a day. Show up early for a rain or shine site walk.  Police activity adjacent to the trailer prevents entry.  We scramble, but are back in the trailer later in the day. The wind was howling and the bridge was groaning. Our CM went to school in South Dakota and said it reminded him of the sound right before a tornado. No more construction, so everyone went home, but I have plenty to do otherwise and kept at it alone, with the wifi and snacks. Power goes out.  Someone is telling me to go home, so I packed up and headed to the car in what felt like a driving hailstorm.  The massive high tension power line that is just south of the bridge crosses the trailer/parking lot overhead.  The catenary curves of the lines were horizontal.  I'm soaked and dumping stuff in my trunk when I spot the public restroom doors wide open.  Trying to be a decent citizen, I jog through the rain and wind to close the doors, remembering upon arrival that without a key, I have no way to bolt them shut from the exterior.  Running back to the car an airborne 55 gallon steel drum nearly takes me out.  So I wasn't too surprised by all the downed trees.

[Leftcoast]

Two weeks ago two 100+ foot Redwoods fell in a Los Gatos neighborhood park crushing two children's play structure and falling on a sidewalk commonly used to connect two neighborhoods by walkers (like me).  Thankfully no one was in the park but it was truly shocking - the diameter of the tree was bigger than the play structure is tall.  They took out power lines, a transformer box, and led to one neighborhood losing power for most of the week.  20 Trucks and work crews descended when weather cleared representing three park services, 2 private forestry firms and several PG&E crews and a contract crew.  A smaller crew is still clearing the mess.

There are two other redwoods still standing.  I hope they aren't taken down but ... we'll see.

So who is to blame? Personally, I don't expect the Los Gatos Park Service to have known these healthy, dark green redwoods were prone to fall - After all they've been standing for a century and looked VERY healthy.  Yet I could see someone suing if the park had not been empty of children and walkers on that blustery day and if the trees had taken out the nearby houses rather than a fence and a bunch of city property.   

Sometimes a tree just falls and no one is too blame. Force Majeure and Acts of God figure in here somewhere and hopefully omniscience hasn't become the legal expectation because every human agency will fall fall short.

By the way, trees took out a handful of other folks not on Stanford streets in the last week's of storms. I wonder if they will all lead to high claims and wrongful death law suits with lawyers trying to affix blame for various acts of God?

[Leftcoast]

Two weeks ago two 100+ foot Redwoods fell in a Los Gatos neighborhood park crushing two children's play structure and falling on a sidewalk commonly used to connect two neighborhoods by walkers (like me).  Thankfully no one was in the park but it was truly shocking - the diameter of the tree was bigger than the play structure is tall.  They took out power lines, a transformer box, and led to one neighborhood losing power for most of the week.  20 Trucks and work crews descended when weather cleared representing three park services, 2 private forestry firms and several PG&E crews and a contract crew.  A smaller crew is still clearing the mess.

There are two other redwoods still standing.  I hope they aren't taken down but ... we'll see.

So who is to blame? Personally, I don't expect the Los Gatos Park Service to have known these healthy, dark green redwoods were prone to fall - After all they've been standing for a century and looked VERY healthy.  Yet I could see someone suing if the park had not been empty of children and walkers on that blustery day and if the trees had taken out the nearby houses rather than a fence and a bunch of city property.   

Sometimes a tree just falls and no one is too blame. Force Majeure and Acts of God figure in here somewhere and hopefully omniscience hasn't become the legal expectation because every human agency will fall fall short.

By the way, trees took out a handful of other folks not on Stanford streets in the last week's of storms. I wonder if they will all lead to high claims and wrongful death law suits with lawyers trying to affix blame for various acts of God?

[BostonCard]

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.

Glad the drum missed you.  You live a much more interesting life than I do.

BC

[BostonCard]

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.

Glad the drum missed you.  You live a much more interesting life than I do.

BC

[Mick]

There are plans to take down the El Camino Eucalyptus grove, but it is taking years.

When I was 17, I was on my way to basketball practice on Hwy 1 in Santa Cruz during a driving rainstorm. There were an array of Eucalyptus trees, and we watched one topple over and land on the truck in front of us, stopping traffic in both directions. We skidded to a halt, and helped the driver out of his truck -- the windshield had shattered on him, and he was a mess. Fortunately, it was very close to Dominican Hospital, to which we transported him. Eucalyptus trees have very shallow roots, and it's a clear and present danger.

A large oak tree toppled in our local park during a rainstorm...happily, it fell at night. The local park employees had it disassembled and carted away within a week, they were really on top of it.

[Mick]

There are plans to take down the El Camino Eucalyptus grove, but it is taking years.

When I was 17, I was on my way to basketball practice on Hwy 1 in Santa Cruz during a driving rainstorm. There were an array of Eucalyptus trees, and we watched one topple over and land on the truck in front of us, stopping traffic in both directions. We skidded to a halt, and helped the driver out of his truck -- the windshield had shattered on him, and he was a mess. Fortunately, it was very close to Dominican Hospital, to which we transported him. Eucalyptus trees have very shallow roots, and it's a clear and present danger.

A large oak tree toppled in our local park during a rainstorm...happily, it fell at night. The local park employees had it disassembled and carted away within a week, they were really on top of it.

[OCcardinal]

I've removed Stanford from my estate plans. What happened at the law school, especially the lack of any consequences for ringleader Dean Steinbach, was the last straw for me.

Without digging into the political valences of this saga, what makes you think there are a lack of consequences? FWIW, she's presently on administrative leave and the Dean's letter indicated it could not yet comment on what the ultimate resolution would be. And as a second FWIW, both of the deans involved in the YLS "traphouse" saga were reassigned to new positions in the aftermath of that scandal, which is my best guess for what will happen here. One rather soon thereafter decamped for another institution, and my guess is that Steinbach will too...

FYI, I listened to the full recording of the Stanford law school incident.  A few things to keep in mind:
1) Some students, who admittedly where there to protest the speaker's legal opinions, reacted disruptively during his speech. (For example, when he was talking about his COVID opinion, a student shouted out, "and people died like my grandfather").  However, in part due to the actions of the dean, most of the protesters eventually left and the speaker was given the opportunity to say whatever he wanted.  
2) The speaker chose instead to insult the law students for the earlier disruptions.  Not surprisingly, the students took exception to that.  But mostly they just wanted him to go on with his speech.  You can hear students on the recording literally begging him to do so. But he responds by saying he is not going to stand there and just read a speech and then chooses to unilaterally skip to the Q&A session. (The event had no moderator.)
3) The Q&A session was actually really interesting.  The students asked insightful, knowledgeable questions, as you would expect top law students to do. But then the speaker abruptly cut that off and commenced his press tour of personal grievance that the world has seen (which interestingly has not included any of the content of the important speech that he was purportedly prevented from delivering to a few dozen students back at Stanford).  In any event, the whole episode was nothing like people have made it out to be. 

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.

[OCcardinal]

I've removed Stanford from my estate plans. What happened at the law school, especially the lack of any consequences for ringleader Dean Steinbach, was the last straw for me.

Without digging into the political valences of this saga, what makes you think there are a lack of consequences? FWIW, she's presently on administrative leave and the Dean's letter indicated it could not yet comment on what the ultimate resolution would be. And as a second FWIW, both of the deans involved in the YLS "traphouse" saga were reassigned to new positions in the aftermath of that scandal, which is my best guess for what will happen here. One rather soon thereafter decamped for another institution, and my guess is that Steinbach will too...

FYI, I listened to the full recording of the Stanford law school incident.  A few things to keep in mind:
1) Some students, who admittedly where there to protest the speaker's legal opinions, reacted disruptively during his speech. (For example, when he was talking about his COVID opinion, a student shouted out, "and people died like my grandfather").  However, in part due to the actions of the dean, most of the protesters eventually left and the speaker was given the opportunity to say whatever he wanted.  
2) The speaker chose instead to insult the law students for the earlier disruptions.  Not surprisingly, the students took exception to that.  But mostly they just wanted him to go on with his speech.  You can hear students on the recording literally begging him to do so. But he responds by saying he is not going to stand there and just read a speech and then chooses to unilaterally skip to the Q&A session. (The event had no moderator.)
3) The Q&A session was actually really interesting.  The students asked insightful, knowledgeable questions, as you would expect top law students to do. But then the speaker abruptly cut that off and commenced his press tour of personal grievance that the world has seen (which interestingly has not included any of the content of the important speech that he was purportedly prevented from delivering to a few dozen students back at Stanford).  In any event, the whole episode was nothing like people have made it out to be. 

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.

[Goose]

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.

[Goose]

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.

[CompSci87]

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.

I was interested to see the Burlingame proposal is to go back to the original mixture of elm and eucalyptus. Is there now an elm variety that's resistant to Dutch elm disease? 

When I was a child in Milwaukee some of our streets were still lined on both sides with tall elms that formed a beautiful canopy shading the whole street. Dutch elm disease of course was already a problem, and it wasn't long before most or all of the remaining elms succumbed.

The city planted maples on many streets. They were nice, but puny in size compared to the elms.

Glad the drum missed you.  You live a much more interesting life than I do.

And you tell great stories! Thanks jacket3ree and I'm glad you are okay!

[CompSci87]

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.

I was interested to see the Burlingame proposal is to go back to the original mixture of elm and eucalyptus. Is there now an elm variety that's resistant to Dutch elm disease? 

When I was a child in Milwaukee some of our streets were still lined on both sides with tall elms that formed a beautiful canopy shading the whole street. Dutch elm disease of course was already a problem, and it wasn't long before most or all of the remaining elms succumbed.

The city planted maples on many streets. They were nice, but puny in size compared to the elms.

Glad the drum missed you.  You live a much more interesting life than I do.

And you tell great stories! Thanks jacket3ree and I'm glad you are okay!

[lex24]

You live in Burlingame, right BC?

That wasn't my truck. Years ago, I donated the carcass of a white pickup with 300,000 miles on it that could no longer pass smog.

There are plans to take down the El Camino Eucalyptus grove, but it is taking years.

Caltrans is involved

Like much of Australia's native flora and fauna, Eucalyptus are deadly.  If I drove that stretch of the King's Highway even more than I already do, I'd want those trees gone immediately.  But as with anything in the public domain, not everyone agrees.

That Tuesday was bonkers. I'm encamped in a construction trailer that sits hard by the west abutment of the San Mateo Bridge. What a day. Show up early for a rain or shine site walk.  Police activity adjacent to the trailer prevents entry.  We scramble, but are back in the trailer later in the day. The wind was howling and the bridge was groaning. Our CM went to school in South Dakota and said it reminded him of the sound right before a tornado. No more construction, so everyone went home, but I have plenty to do otherwise and kept at it alone, with the wifi and snacks. Power goes out.  Someone is telling me to go home, so I packed up and headed to the car in what felt like a driving hailstorm.  The massive high tension power line that is just south of the bridge crosses the trailer/parking lot overhead.  The catenary curves of the lines were horizontal.  I'm soaked and dumping stuff in my trunk when I spot the public restroom doors wide open.  Trying to be a decent citizen, I jog through the rain and wind to close the doors, remembering upon arrival that without a key, I have no way to bolt them shut from the exterior.  Running back to the car an airborne 55 gallon steel drum nearly takes me out.  So I wasn't too surprised by all the downed trees.

Great story! Very glad the drum missed….


Every Eucalyptus in Calif should be cut down….

[lex24]

You live in Burlingame, right BC?

That wasn't my truck. Years ago, I donated the carcass of a white pickup with 300,000 miles on it that could no longer pass smog.

There are plans to take down the El Camino Eucalyptus grove, but it is taking years.

Caltrans is involved

Like much of Australia's native flora and fauna, Eucalyptus are deadly.  If I drove that stretch of the King's Highway even more than I already do, I'd want those trees gone immediately.  But as with anything in the public domain, not everyone agrees.

That Tuesday was bonkers. I'm encamped in a construction trailer that sits hard by the west abutment of the San Mateo Bridge. What a day. Show up early for a rain or shine site walk.  Police activity adjacent to the trailer prevents entry.  We scramble, but are back in the trailer later in the day. The wind was howling and the bridge was groaning. Our CM went to school in South Dakota and said it reminded him of the sound right before a tornado. No more construction, so everyone went home, but I have plenty to do otherwise and kept at it alone, with the wifi and snacks. Power goes out.  Someone is telling me to go home, so I packed up and headed to the car in what felt like a driving hailstorm.  The massive high tension power line that is just south of the bridge crosses the trailer/parking lot overhead.  The catenary curves of the lines were horizontal.  I'm soaked and dumping stuff in my trunk when I spot the public restroom doors wide open.  Trying to be a decent citizen, I jog through the rain and wind to close the doors, remembering upon arrival that without a key, I have no way to bolt them shut from the exterior.  Running back to the car an airborne 55 gallon steel drum nearly takes me out.  So I wasn't too surprised by all the downed trees.

Great story! Very glad the drum missed….


Every Eucalyptus in Calif should be cut down….

[BostonCard]

Here's an article about Burlingame's eucalyptus trees (from a pro-eucalyptus perspective):

https://theburlingameb.org/667/opinion/2...tus-trees/

As I said, an odd hill to die on, but here we are.

And here is Caltrans' page on the project:

https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/dist...al-project

They had, I kid you not, a "tree workshop" on Feb. 9.  If you click on the slide deck, construction is supposed to start next summer (yeah, right, I will believe it when I see it) and end two years later (ha!).

I like their description of "conflict" between tree roots and sidewalks, as if one could bring in a mediator.

This might violate the "no politics" portion of the board, because, as everyone knows "all politics is local".  I'll take it down if anyone objects, but I am interested in the technical aspects, not the political ones.  But it is a good illustration of the phenomenon Goose describes.  My attitude is that there's a problem here, let's fix it as best we can because progress is about getting to a better future state and necessarily involves changing some things that some people liked.  Moreover, the proposed solution isn't likely to be everyone's favorite, but from my perspective, it doesn't have to be my favorite, just better than what we have now.

BC

[BostonCard]

Here's an article about Burlingame's eucalyptus trees (from a pro-eucalyptus perspective):

https://theburlingameb.org/667/opinion/2...tus-trees/

As I said, an odd hill to die on, but here we are.

And here is Caltrans' page on the project:

https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/dist...al-project

They had, I kid you not, a "tree workshop" on Feb. 9.  If you click on the slide deck, construction is supposed to start next summer (yeah, right, I will believe it when I see it) and end two years later (ha!).

I like their description of "conflict" between tree roots and sidewalks, as if one could bring in a mediator.

This might violate the "no politics" portion of the board, because, as everyone knows "all politics is local".  I'll take it down if anyone objects, but I am interested in the technical aspects, not the political ones.  But it is a good illustration of the phenomenon Goose describes.  My attitude is that there's a problem here, let's fix it as best we can because progress is about getting to a better future state and necessarily involves changing some things that some people liked.  Moreover, the proposed solution isn't likely to be everyone's favorite, but from my perspective, it doesn't have to be my favorite, just better than what we have now.

BC

[82lsju]

If you click on the slide deck, construction is supposed to start next summer (yeah, right, I will believe it when I see it) and end two years later (ha!).

well CalTrans has been going to resurface El Camino from Mountain View to Menlo Park each of the last three summers, they tell us this summer for sure....

and some in Palo Alto are starting to question their tree policies

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2023...-ordinance

Anneke Dempsey was concerned about the giant oak in her backyard for years. The weight of its massive limbs could potentially cause the tree or branches to fall onto her or her neighbor's home, she told a city of Palo Alto's Public Works Department arborist.

The city, however, said she and her husband, Ray, were forbidden from removing some of the large limbs because the tree was protected by the city's heritage tree ordinance, a law intended to preserve Palo Alto's canopy. In addition, part of the tree was located on city-owned land adjacent to the Dempseys' home, and thus under the city's jurisdiction.

On March 14, the Dempseys' concern was realized with near-fatal consequences. Ray Dempsey had been working in their backyard, and the couple's beloved Labrador, Daisy Mae, was accompanying him. Minutes after they left the yard, the 40-year-old, giant tree came crashing down.

[82lsju]

If you click on the slide deck, construction is supposed to start next summer (yeah, right, I will believe it when I see it) and end two years later (ha!).

well CalTrans has been going to resurface El Camino from Mountain View to Menlo Park each of the last three summers, they tell us this summer for sure....

and some in Palo Alto are starting to question their tree policies

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2023...-ordinance

Anneke Dempsey was concerned about the giant oak in her backyard for years. The weight of its massive limbs could potentially cause the tree or branches to fall onto her or her neighbor's home, she told a city of Palo Alto's Public Works Department arborist.

The city, however, said she and her husband, Ray, were forbidden from removing some of the large limbs because the tree was protected by the city's heritage tree ordinance, a law intended to preserve Palo Alto's canopy. In addition, part of the tree was located on city-owned land adjacent to the Dempseys' home, and thus under the city's jurisdiction.

On March 14, the Dempseys' concern was realized with near-fatal consequences. Ray Dempsey had been working in their backyard, and the couple's beloved Labrador, Daisy Mae, was accompanying him. Minutes after they left the yard, the 40-year-old, giant tree came crashing down.