Mailbag - March 30, 2000

Reader suggests topping trees

Had Ogden Nash lived on a view lot in Costa Mesa, he might have

parodied Joyce Kilmer’s famous poem a little differently: “I think I

never, ever, knew/ A tree as lovely as a view./ Indeed, unless the trees

do fall,/ I’ll never see my view at all!”

At issue is the maturing trees that are gradually blocking views of

the ocean from homes bordering Canyon Park. A solution presented to the

City Council was to remove the offending trees after replacement trees

are in place. Disadvantages of this solution include cost, getting

permission from the California Coastal Commission and finding suitable

replacement trees that would not block the view once the replacements

matured.

There is a simpler solution, but it requires challenging an underlying

assumption: that we should never top a tree (arborists advise that

topping may weaken a tree and promote disease and early death). What if

we go ahead and top the trees anyway? The worst that can happen is that a

tree will die in a few years and have to be replaced. Isn’t this

ultimately the same result, though, as when a healthy tree is pulled out

to make room for a replacement tree? Either way, a given tree will be

gone in a few years.

If topping -- which is a maintenance activity -- needs no approval

from the Coastal Commission, then topping greatly simplifies the

politics. In addition, topping may be less expensive in the long run,

especially if it turns out that not every tree is harmed by topping. In

support of this, there are about six eucalyptus trees on Pacific Avenue

(at Wilson) that have been severely topped -- no green left after

trimming -- every year since at least 1985, and they are all still

thriving.

TOM EGAN

Costa Mesa

Pacific Life will remain thriving in Newport

In today’s Daily Pilot is an article (“Sculpture sale a tall order,”

March 21) about how Pacific Life is remodeling their headquarters in

Newport Center. This is the same Pacific Life Co. that the Chamber of

Commerce said would leave Newport Beach if they could not expand their

building space due to the Greenlight Initiative.

Funny how life plays out. Pacific Life has come up with an alternative

solution and life as we know it didn’t end after all.

OWEN JOHNSON

Balboa

Reader lists more negatives of TV

I enjoyed your article (“Steve Smith -- Turn off the tube,” March 25).

It brought out many aspects of the TV culture which have long disturbed

us.

My wife, Christa, and I grew up at a time when TV was not a pervasive

part of the culture. We were both in the education field, so when we were

raising our children we instinctively felt that the commercialism and

superficiality of television programming would not be the best influence

on them. We thus became one of the very few homes in the neighborhood

without a TV set. Today we have a TV set in our garage that is turned

ononly for the occasion of Olympic figure skating or other special

occasions -- perhaps three times per year. We are delighted at the

amount of time we have for reading, writing listening to and making

music, talking, walking and anything else that comes to mind.

Your article hit home on the negatives of TV especially regarding our

children, but you might consider some of the other negatives of the tube

your article did not mention.

1) That the four major networks are owned by General Electric (NBC),

Westinghouse (CBS, now with Viacom), Disney (ABC) and Rupert Murdoch

(FOX). The news from these owners is a charade, not just because of the

spin they put on the news, but more importantly because of the news that

they censor to protect their own interests in other businesses, and to

increase their profits by cutting back on the number of reporters they

employ, both nationwide and worldwide. Example: You will never see a

thorough study of the problem of disposing of nuclear waste on NBC or

CBS, because their owners, General Electric and Westinghouse, run

businesses that create nuclear waste.

2) That the holders of TV licenses are charged with “serving the

public interest” -- something they pay little or no attention to. The

stooges -- the yes men -- of these license holders, the member of the

FCC, are handpicked by our two major political parties. Those licenses

will of course continue to contribute money to members of Congress as

long as their stooges remain in control of the FCC, and automatically

renew their licenses, ignoring both their obligation to the people, and

the opportunity to change television into a positive force in our

society.

3) Movies, book publishing and the recording industry are under the

control of the same entities that control the TV networks. We can expect

that commercial TV will shove down the throats of its audience a great

deal of hype regarding those products produced by their subsidiaries, and

restrict criticism of those subsidiaries. Example: Disney CEO Michael

Aisne recently stated publicly that Disney-owned ABC should not air

programs critical of Disney.

It is discouraging to see TV, which is such a great means of

communication, placed under the control of the likes of Aisne and Murdoch

and used primarily for their own benefit instead of as a means to

enlighten and to educate.

Your article helps to focus attention on the problem. We need more

such articles. Hopefully, you will do a follow up to discuss some of the

other negatives of the tube.

GERRY LONG

Newport Beach