Sounding Off -- Dave Connell

Mary Nelson’s letter in the May 17 edition of the Coastline Pilot,

“Laguna trees should be cherished,” stated I had a dislike for trees,

questioned if I had ever been to Carmel and asked me to ponder about the

tree situation in Carmel. First, let me state that Nelson is wrong on all

counts.

I like trees and have made the following statement in writing and at

the council meetings many times. That is: the right kind of tree in the

right location is great, but the wrong tree and/or a tree in the wrong

location is a disaster to both public and private view sheds. I have

plenty of trees on my property but none of them block anyone’s view nor

create fire hazards.

The answer to her question is that I have been to Carmel many times as

well as to most of our coastal cities including a lot in Oregon and

Washington as well as many other states and countries.

And now to “ponder” about Carmel. Let me say that comparing Carmel to

Laguna is worse than comparing oranges and apples. Carmel is in a rainy

damp part of our state where large trees are natural to the area and were

there long before any development occurred. Conversely, Laguna is in the

arid south with very little rain.

For the most part only shrubs are native to our west-facing slopes and

some oaks in the canyons. Nature endowed this area with open and spacious

views that were not available in the Carmel area. Artists came here to

paint our beautiful coast as viewed from these unique, open and spacious

vistas. (My brother-in-law was one of those artists.)

Regarding her statement that we “shouldn’t destroy old Laguna by

cutting down trees” misses the whole point of my earlier letter stating

that Laguna’s richest heritage is its beautiful view sheds.

First, “old Laguna” was essentially treeless and its beauty was in its

magnificent view sheds. It is the wrong trees in the wrong locations that

have destroyed “old Laguna.”

And now for the obvious fact.

In the very issue of the Coastline Pilot in which Ms. Nelson’s letter

appeared, there are two full pages of beautiful Laguna homes in full

color. One page contains 14 pictures of different homes of which 13

pictures either show the views and/or the ads mention the beauty of the

views.

On the other page are eight pictures, five of which feature the views

from the property. Not a single one of these ads mentions anything about

trees.

This is typical of almost all ads for selling prime property in

Laguna. If there is any view at all, it is emphasized, as that is one of

the main things that sells prime property along our coast.

Now I have a question.

Why destroy the beautiful unique views native to this area with a tree

in the wrong location, a tree that you can grow anywhere?

If you dislike views and are overly fond of trees, why not live in a

more reasonably priced location where trees are in abundance and injure

no one unless there is a fire?

* DAVE CONNELL is a Laguna Beach resident.