Is this weird and perhaps a little selfish, or is it just me?

[charlie and algernon]

Basic background first: For the first time this year, the Indy Racing League (IRL) will be coming to Baltimore to race a Grand Prix in downtown Baltimore. Construction crews have been busy for months repaving the roads and now they are installing the concrete walls, fences, and grandstands.

So a friend on facebook posts this editorial ranting about how the Baltimore Grand Prix group is actually cutting down trees to make room for the grandstands. The friend was also justifiably upset. So I read up on it and it turns out that the they plan on replanting even more trees once the event is over in the same areas. The City has a 5 year agreement with the Grand Prix. Which means that the race is coming back at least 4 more times after this year. So if they're just replanting the tress in the same spot, they'll just be cut down again this time next year and again and again and again.

I respond to the friend's facebook post saying that while I'm looking forward to the race and plan on attending, I didn't like that they were cutting down the trees but I thought they shouldn't be replanted in the same spot. Instead, put the new trees in a city park where they can live out their lives.


This girl, who I don't know, responds saying "(my name), some of us who walk to work along the track appreciate the shade."


So is she really saying that she's ok with trees being cut down every year for the next 4 years just so she can have some shade the other 11 months of the year? Does anyone else think this is a tad shelfish? Or does the need for "shade" trump the idea of trees being replanted just to be cut down a year later?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
epilogue - It turns out from this article (http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/green/bs-gr-race-trees-replant-20110803,0,4523219.story) that the Grand Prix people came to same conclusion as I and are replanting the trees in other locations.

But it still stands that this woman is pissed that she lost her shade, even if it means that the new trees won't be touched next year.

[CBGLuthier]

1. I would be pissed too. Especially since I don't give two shits about racing

Cities are for people not race cars.

[charlie and algernon]

2. well yeah, cutting down the trees sucks, I'm pissed about that too

but my thing was, since the race is coming back every September for the next 4 years, why in the world do you replant in the same spot if it means the trees will be cut down again.

Yes, ideally you don't cut down ANY trees, but unfortunately it's already happened. Yes, you (generic "you", not you CBGLuthier) lose your shade, but think of all the trees that are saved because they've been re-planted in locations that WON'T be affected by future races.

[Kali]

3. what kind of trees?

some trees are kind of junky and fast growing - why not plant them as "temporary" shade until this contract is up and then replant more permanent landscaping? then everybody wins. I hate to see beautiful old trees cut but bottom line, most city landscape is renewable so in the long run cutting a tree isn't like tearing down a historic structure. Plants are renewable.

[MerryBlooms]

4. Destroying the trees for entertainment -

Yeah, I'm with your friend.

This story reminds me of when the city cut down all our old trees to widen the street. The only time my mom was ever political, was protesting the cutting of the trees. We ended up losing, in more ways than one. The shade is critical to some dwellings - it's what keeps us from having to install air conditioners and causing even more environmental damage, plus the increased electricity bills. Many of the retirees were forced to sell in just a few years - the fixed incomes couldn't keep up with the cost.