by Nancy Price
As the City Council decision over The Cannery project looms, those who wish to save the mature valley oaks and cedars are making the case that these trees have “value” – a different kind of value than total clearing and leveling of the site to build a project profitable for the developers and to provide specific economic benefits for the city.
It seems to me that implicit in the comments that these trees are mature, from about 50 – 150 or more years, have for years been thriving on their own without any special care or irrigation, have for years provided habitat for various species, and have provide other eco-system functions such as absorbing CO2, is another value – that these trees just have the inherent right to exist as they are. Furthermore, it seems to me that those who want to save these trees are also implicitly making the case that these trees are part of the living commons of nature within the city of which we are the guardians for present and future generations.
The legal concept that trees – nature – might have an inherent right to exist was first proposed in 1972, by Christopher Stone, now Professor Emeritus at the University of Southern California in his path breaking law journal article, “Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects.” In this article, he set forth the legal framework for the rights of nature arguing that since trees, as well as all aspects of nature, cannot exercise those rights themselves, individuals or groups should be able to apply to the court for legal guardianship, and for the right to litigate on nature’s behalf.
More than 30 years later, in 2003, Cormac Cullinan, a South African environmental lawyer, deeply affected by the writings of eco-theologian Thomas Berry and Indigenous people’s understanding of the interconnectedness of all life, wrote in Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice, “We need a new body of law whose first priority is to protect the ecological community in which we live.” Three years later, Tom Linzey, founder of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, worked with a small eastern Pennsylvania town was the first in the U.S. to pass a law to recognize the “Inalienable Right of Natural Communities and Ecosystems to Exist and Flourish” so as to protect their agricultural fields and public health from industrial sludge fertilizer. This was among the first “wild laws” to be passed anywhere in the world, now followed by other communities in PA, NH, and ME to pass Rights of Nature ordinances. Later in September 2008, when their new Constitution was passed by national referendum, Ecuador became the first country to codify the traditional wisdom of Indigenous people who recognize Mother Earth as a living being with which they have an indivisible, interdependent, complementary, and spiritual relationship into a new system of environmental protection based on rights of nature.
Short of having such a legal mandate, the City Council can direct the Planning Department and the City Forester to work with the developer to create a revised site plan that incorporates all trees identified that should and can be retained. This would set an example to all the community, and especially to the young, the importance of recognizing that nature has a right to exist, and that we, the present generation, can and will enact our responsibility as stewards of nature for future generations.
Nancy,
Thanks for this clear, concise presentation of a concept that those who see the environment in terms of its uses for human material gain rarely consider. Modern western society which is now arguably the dominant force on the planet is based on a concept of people having hegemony over the earth. There are however, other traditions that take a more balanced perspective of the human condition placing humans as just one part of the ecosystem that comprises the earth. We are a uniquely volatile part of this overall ecosystem since we are the only species with the ability to preserve or destroy large segments of the earth, and the hubris to believe that as humans, it is our right to do so. In my view, this should translate into the belief that it is our responsibility to show self restraint and preserve the environment that provides for our existence. Unfortunately, this belief does not seem to have taken hold to the detriment of much of the earth.
Nancy, thank you.
“these trees are part of the living commons of nature “
Actually they are private property.
“When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world.”
― John Muir
The wrongs done to trees, wrongs of every sort, are done in the darkness of ignorance and unbelief, for when the light comes, the heart of the people is always right.
– John of the Mountains: The Unpublished Journals of John Muir, (1938), page 429
I agree we should save as many of the trees as possible and that the natural world is interwoven. My problem with this deep ecology philosophy is that it confers upon an object divine teleological or anthropomorphic values that are little more than human projection and conjures a new body of law that doesn’t exist under current statute.
There is currently a process under way to address these issues. Let us honor the rule of law and the well established process already accepted by society for making these decisions.
[i]My problem with this deep ecology philosophy is that it confers upon an object divine teleological or anthropomorphic values that are little more than human projection and conjures a new body of law that doesn’t exist under current statute[/i]
Thanks for that deep thought this morning Mr. Toad.
I agree.
Trees are scripted as old and wise souls connected within a spiritual network of nature and that are victimized by evil businessmen, then the “good” environmentalists (who are often atheists) team with heroic scientists to protect them by preventing business development.
That was pretty much the plot of the movie Avatar.
Everyone loves trees.
Problem is, nobody finishes the last chapter of the script where cities go bankrupt because they prioritize saving a few of them over developing enough of an economy to pay for their necessities of life.
” Let us honor the rule of law and the well established process already accepted by society for making these decisions.”
Following these practices haven’t always worked out so well for trees.
Any fool can destroy trees. They cannot run away; and if they could, they would still be destroyed — chased and hunted down as long as fun or a dollar could be got out of their bark hides, branching horns, or magnificent bole backbones. Few that fell trees plant them; nor would planting avail much towards getting back anything like the noble primeval forests. … It took more than three thousand years to make some of the trees in these Western woods — trees that are still standing in perfect strength and beauty, waving and singing in the mighty forests of the Sierra. Through all the wonderful, eventful centuries … God has cared for these trees, saved them from drought, disease, avalanches, and a thousand straining, leveling tempests and floods; but he cannot save them from fools — only Uncle Sam can do that.
-John Muir
[quote]Problem is, nobody finishes the last chapter of the script where cities go bankrupt because they prioritize saving a few of them over developing enough of an economy to pay for their necessities of life.[/quote]
Are you saying that saving a few trees will cause the city to go bankrupt? I thought it was the unfunded pensions?
You would think that Davis was Yosemite. I imagine John Muir, who found Yosemite while herding sheep into the Sierras, eventually realized that sheep grazing Yosemite was unwise. I wonder if he ever felt the same way about the Central Valley.
Some deep analysis there Nancy! But don’t forget the weeds of the Cannery. Our little weedy friends have every much the same right to life as their larger tree cousins. Unfortunately they have been discriminated against by some, denied recognition as an equal part of nature, and treated as the “other”.
Save the weeds of the Cannery!
[i]Are you saying that saving a few trees will cause the city to go bankrupt? I thought it was the unfunded pensions?[/i]
B. Nice – You are a talented rhetorical debater.
Of course you know that the point I was making had to do with the no-growthers using the manufactured outrage of tree removal to add more roadblocks intended to defeat economic development. And defeating economic development has been done so well in the past, here we are with inadequate tax revenue and a city heading toward bankruptcy. But we have saved all that farmland and a few trees. I wonder if we will still feel good about those accomplishments when we really start feeling the impacts of insolvency?
I don’t think the Cannery project is a solution to the city’s economic problems. It’s housing, not economic development. The commercial component is pretty small. Are you saying the housing is going to help the city’s budget problems? A business park on the site would have been a much better proposition from the city’s fiscal standpoint, but of course ConAgra refuses to do that.
If corporations have standing, then why not trees? Seems fair. 😉
“Trees are people too, my friend.” Yeah, I like the sound of that.
The City will retain 21% of the property tax base of around $220 million or more or about $460,000/year in property taxes alone from just the housing portion. It won’t solve our problems but its a start. It will also help fund the schools through increased attendance and provide some additional sales tax revenue. Constructing it will provide jobs too. it isn’t enough to turn things around but its a start.
“A tree’s a tree. How many do you need to look at? You’ve seen one you’ve seen them all.”
Ayn Rand
Okay, Ayn Rand is not cool but i always liked it because few know its where Ronald Reagan ripped it off. He always loved to do the great movie lines of others.
“You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.”
Joseph Stalin
Of course that’s all this is, Stalin’ by the usual opponents to everything; Cannery the water project. I wonder how that water lawsuit with the author of this article as plaintiff is coming along?
[quote]B. Nice – You are a talented rhetorical debater. [/quote]
You give me a lot to work with.
[quote]Of course you know that the point I was making had to do with the no-growthers using the manufactured outrage of tree removal to add more roadblocks intended to defeat economic development.[/quote]
I try not to presume to know what others are thinking, like claiming their rage is manufactured for ulterior purposes.
I agree with this sentiment, which does not call for defeat of the project:
[quote]the City Council can direct the Planning Department and the City Forester to work with the developer to create a revised site plan that incorporates all trees identified that should and can be retained.[/quote]
[quote]You would think that Davis was Yosemite. I imagine John Muir, who found Yosemite while herding sheep into the Sierras, eventually realized that sheep grazing Yosemite was unwise. I wonder if he ever felt the same way about the Central Valley.[/quote]
At my feet lay the Great Central Valley of California, level, and flowery, like a lake pure sunshine, forty or fifity miles wide, five hundred miles long, on rich furred garden of [i]yellow compositoe[/i]
-John Muir
Here’s the fiscal analysis from David’s article:
[url]https://davisvanguard.org/images/stories/Cannery-Fiscal-Analysis-1.png[/url]
[img]https://davisvanguard.org/images/stories/Cannery-Fiscal-Analysis-1.png[/img]
Looks like the General Fund turns negative in Year 10.
The other day someone mentioned turning negative in year 18 a time so far off that it will be a very long time until the project becomes a loser for the city.
By definition a weed is a plant growing where the land owner does not want it. So these trees we are talking about are really just weeds.
[quote]By definition a weed is a plant growing where the land owner does not want it. So these trees we are talking about are really just weeds.[/quote]
Not going to bite.
The concept that nature(and its non-human inhabitants) has “standing” in consideration of competing interests was the foundation of Julie Partansky’s toad tunnel. While ridiculed for not saving the toads displaced by the dog park,the actual execution of this idea was truly precient and a remarkable symbolic achievement.
Sure, the Open Space commission has never even hinted that Measure O will return accessible land to the citizens of this community. They have been perfectly clear that their primary aim has been to preserve farmland with all of that hard-earned tax money we pay into the system every year for the rest of our lives.
[img]http://www.thesocialmisfit.com/openspace.jpg[/img]
Frankly
That is a lovely photo you posted. Unfortunately, it has nothing at all to do with open space. The couple featured in the foreground are strolling along a carefully maintained pathway which is clearly groomed in much the same way as our greenbelts are. The couple being featured in the fore ground also expresses a difference in views of the place of humans in the world. You and Mr. Toad seem to consistently be making the argument that land only has value in its utility for direct use by human beings for their own immediate purposes.
I tend to look at the world more as depicted in traditional Chinese are with nature as the main feature and man as a tiny dependent element in the bigger picture. This view of the world honors the existence of nature apart from and independent of the existence of man. For me, and I realize that I am in the minority in our country, the land has intrinsic value beyond what we can do with it in the moment. Mr. Toad said on a previous post that our current laws are structured such that the land and the items on it, such as trees, are owned and ours to do with as we please. While this is true, I consider it to be unwise policy in the long run. This attitude has led to the steady degradation of our environment in favor of short term economic interests largely because in my view, people in our tradition believe that more is always better and are seldom content with what they have now but feel a restless need to expand and consume. This is not how all humans are. It is a learned trait passed on to our children. We could choose to teach them voluntarily now. We are fortunate that we will not be around to view the consequences that our lack of stewardship of the earth will have for those who come after us if we choose not to change this destructive view of the world.
That definitely hints at it. They should of have used one of Don’s photo’s.
Frankly didn’t mention that this is the cover shot on a draft report put together by the Open Space and Habitat commission (I felt compelled to check his sources). I do agree it’s misleading, as I don’t believe it represents accurately the intent Measure O funds.
medwoman–good post above at 08:20; I mostly agree with the philosophy expressed, but seldom hear it expressed.
I think many of those who support pedal-to-the-metal use of resources for economic gain look back on history and see the gains in material well-being that clever exploitation of resources has helped enable–and with our western philosophy of black/white and right/wrong; if some exploitation is a good thing; then more exploitation must be even better. Whereas perhaps a philosophy of balance; or the ‘middle way’ , might be a wiser approach to adopt in the long-run (I think this is Taoist or other oriental philosophical tradition?). I recall a movie where the ‘middle way’ was given concrete form in a mythical quest in which the hero protagonist had to cross a narrow winding footpath in a thick mist; with bottomless chasms on each side if he strayed from the ‘middle way’–it seems to me supporting a unipolar relationship with the world around us will lead us into a bottomless pit.
Most, but not all, lamenting the pursuit of profit resulting from the “exploitation” of natural resources (like land), are generally at least once, but likely many times, removed from the source of production that sustains them. Either they are removed by time, or by the successive layers of a value chain. In any case, they have lost their sense for how their quality of life is funded. And at the root of that sense should be an appreciation of the very things they seek to minimize and ultimately destroy in a flurry of moral superiority positions and arguments. God help us if they win too many of those positions and arguments, because we will suffer greatly before the cycle repeats itself again, and the morally-superior destroyers sink back again into political irrelevancy.
Balance is a worthy goal. But often those complaining about a lack of balance are bent on tilting far out of balance.
We have preserved 5000 acres of open space. About half before Measure O and the rest from Measure O funds. less than 5% of those 5000 acres are accessible park space. And the city is heading toward bankruptcy due to a last of tax revenue derived from economic activity. Davis is behind its state and regional share of housing development even as the university that has sustained the town and allowed it to thrive has caused a greater demand on regional housing needs.
We are out of balance. That is true. But is not from a lack of environmental protection… it is from a lack of economic development.
Yes, we are out of balance.
Frankly–I’ve fished for food (caught, cleaned and gutted, cooked, and ate) and have enjoyed the elk and deer meat that my brother has shot (he gutted them, but then had them professionally cleaned, dresses and butchered) and also enjoyed bear meat from a 2nd cousin in Alaska when I was younger. I’ve planted trees and harvested and ate the fruit, same with veggies. I’ve done simple carpentry (and helped a bit with more complex carpentry jobs) and household electrical work. And I don’t regret any of this, or the use of resources involved. What’s going on in a planetwide scale now is that we’re very near of already past the point of population that can sustain a decent standard of living; the planet is finite and only has so much to offer. The argument that Davis needs further population growth in order to support economic development (or the city budget) is used all around the world; putting positive pressure to increase population growth; rather than using political/economic policies that give incentives to level out or reduce population. (also our capital/debt based financing and monetary schemes require continuing growth into the future in order to have any hope of paying off current debt; a Ponzi scheme that all hope can be sustained indefinitely). The Friedman based market/economic policies, taught as gospel in business schools for the last 50 years or more, have indeed been successful in growing the economy and the material well-being of people during the era of vast untapped natural resources; however now that the finititude of these natural resources is becoming apparent, the old mantra of growth, growth, growth may not lead to a good end. Though I would concede that in the short run, such growth might help a bit with the city budget.
Frankly
[quote]Most, but not all, lamenting the pursuit of profit resulting from the “exploitation” of natural resources (like land), are generally at least once, but likely many times, removed from the source of production that sustains them[/quote]
You are omitting the reason that this is true. We have adopted an urbanized form of living at the expense of those whose preference was a lifestyle closer to nature. I have written about the rural setting in which I grew up in which my father regularly supplemented our food with fish and game. Now the poor people who live in
Gig Harbor who have food insecurity can’t go out and catch or shoot their own, they are dependent upon charity or government largess if they can’t secure jobs because rich folks moved in so that they could build their luxury homes on view lots created by cutting down the forest.
Another example can be seen on the Tohono Ottam reservation in Arizona where the US limits the land available to the indigenous people, stops them from crossing the border into Mexico where they previously had the ability to go back and forth at will. Then because they do not have sufficient land to provide for the entire population, provide food from surplus regardless of nutritional quality thus leading to the development of obesity and Type II diabetes.
You usually express a preference for individual choice and responsibility, completely ignoring that those who have money and power have systematically caused others to be unable to support themselves in their completely adequate, often healthier and more independent lifestyle. I truly do believe in individual responsibility. But you cannot expect this from people whose means of self sufficiency has been destroyed for the luxuries desired by more powerful individuals. I would like to preserve as much of our natural environment, resources and diversity as possible so that future generations will have some choice beyond the materially driven lifestyle we have adopted as a nation.