A former president of Pasadena Beautiful, flanked by a dozen or so supporters, called passionately for a boycott of one of Pasadena’s iconic retailers at public comment during last night’s Pasadena City Council meeting. Why try to put one of Pasadena’s mainstays out of business? Because the store supported the fifteen year-old Playhouse District streetscape plan that calls for, among other things, cutting down 30 or so ficus and carrotwood trees and replacing them with twice as many palms and ginkos.
Regardless of the reason, is it really in our community’s best interest to thwart the economic vitality of any member of our local business community over an issue such as this? And this isn’t the only instance. It’s rumored that a local children’s institution has urged it’s friends to boycott a local business district over perceived lack of support for an annual event.
Who loses in all this? If Pasadena Beautiful, an organization that relies on donations from local people for its survival, loses support from local businesses because those businesses are offended by the stridency of a former PB president is that justified? If advertisers in the local newspapers choose another venue for their ad dollars because their local editor is fomenting anger over Playhouse District tree removals, who is the real loser?
Actually, without Pasadena Beautiful, Kidspace Museum, Vromans and the Star-News, we all lose. Not just because the local store, children’s service and newspaper have to cope with even more difficult economic realities, but because people in Pasadena can’t agree to maintain a civil, respectful and appropriate level of discourse.
There will always be competing interests on any issue, but the discourse needs to remain on a level that requires respect (and prudence).
Where is the voice that reminds the Pasadena Beautiful president emirita that she can have more of an impact on climate change by not running her air conditioning in the summer than those 30 trees could manage? Where is the voice reminding the newspaper editor that the institution that writes his paycheck kills more than 30 trees every day. (AND it makes no difference if the trees are grown specifically for that purpose or not, they still die to publish the newspaper.)
In Pasadena, trees are an emotional issue, but so is the continued vitality of a local retail institution that has survived in the face of tremendous pressure from the changing marketplace. Remember, this is an institution that has been vital to the growth, development and identity of Pasadena — AND it is owned by a family that has been integral to the growth and development of Pasadena as a city we all cherish.
How many give-back dollars have gone to support Pasadena Beautiful, I wonder? How many book fueled ad dollars have found their way into reporters’ and editors’ pockets through payroll checks?
Calling for a boycott in this instance is a shame, pure and simple. Those who would advocate doing so should think long and hard about their priorities — and consider the long-term effects and implications of what they are suggesting.
In the end, we are talking about a couple of dozen trees here. Nobody dies.
Paul
5 responses so far ↓
Cafe Observer // February 24, 2009 at 10:10 pm |
Spoken like a ex-politician & current pro-biz leader – ironically, the groups behind the “Timber!!” to the ficus/carrotwood trees.
“How many give back dollars have…” & “How many book fueled ad dollars…” Sounds like you’re saying, “you’ve been paid off, now just keep quiet and go along with the program.”
I guess that’s how much of politics works. It could one day create a cynical citizenry.
Some people in the community who care enuf about this issue just want to feel that the best decision regarding these trees is being taken along with any replacement trees being the best choice. Last century, the decision makers made the choice for the current trees which turned out to be problematic.
Since both biz & trees are vitally important to Pasadena, all the more vital for a decision that can meet the needs of both supporting groups. So, these pols/biz leaders should think long & hard about the chopping & replacing of these trees, and consider the long-term effects of what they are replaying in this century.
A satisfactory decision can be found to for all: politicians, biz people, and trees huggers. But, it just takes a little more time…and some wisdom.
“Nobody dies”?? I can’t believe you really feel that indifferent about anything other than someone dying.
pasadenachamberofcommerce // February 25, 2009 at 6:25 pm |
You miss my overarching point, which is that boycotting a local business over an issue such as this can have repercussions for everyone and not be in be best interests of those who might advocate such an action.
What is appreciated was the dialogue, which occurred over the course of several City Council meetings, including this past Monday. What would be appreciated is acceptance of the decision by the Council to move forward with the plan. The discussion happened, the differing views were aired and a decision rendered. I can appreciate that you don’t agree or support the decision, but that does not alter the fact that a decision was made after people on both sides of the issue had more than ample opportunity (multiple opportunities, in fact) to weigh in.
Nobody dies? Well, nobody dies. This isn’t a call for a boycott (such as the one that helped end apartheid in South Africa or that could end child labor practices in China) that could actually save a human life or even noticeably improve a life. It’s a punitive measure intended to hurt a business over a difference of opinion.
Thanks,
Paul
Tree supporter // February 25, 2009 at 8:48 pm |
After receiving a sympathetic email from the Mayor saying he thought it was time to review the decision to remove the trees, I attended the second city council meeting, and came away with the impression that the council members were all against the removal of the trees, or at least those that were not causing damage to the sidewalk (which was, in fact, the vast majority of them). Then, to everyone’s great surprise,at the council meeting on the following Monday, everyone, with the exception of Sid Tyler, decided to forget the previous week’s comments and go ahead with the 1996 plan to cut down all the trees and replace them with palms and gingkos. What happened during that intervening week? Did you all succumb to lobbying from the Playhouse District Chamber of Commerce? Because that’s the way it looks. I still can’t see why the Playhouse District thinks that losing those large green trees and replacing them with almost invisible saplings will draw more shoppers to their stores? It’ll be hot in the summer, and shadeless, so fewer people will want to walk in this area. I may not be actively boycotting the Playhouse District from now on, but I will definitely avoid the area – why go somewhere associated with bad memories and sadness? The outdated plan to make this stretch of Colorado look similar to Old Town couldn’t have been implemented at a worse time economically – a time when businesses need to attract customers, not drive them away.
Judy Pollack // February 26, 2009 at 12:23 pm |
The Playhouse district merchants are undermining their own businesses. Equating sickly, stunted, barren gingkos that do not thrive in this hot dry climate to beautiful, useful shade trees (whether the existing trees or a climate-appropriate alternative) is an insult to our intelligence. Creating a streetscape with the ambience of an industrial park and the summer temperature of Death Valley is going to drive customers away in droves. That’s not a boycott, that’s self-preservation; even a dog knows that it’s a lot more comfortable under a tree than out in the hot blazing sun.
Cafe Observer // February 26, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
Well, at least we got someone at this blog to communicate with its readers. I didn’t mention anything about a boycott. Maybe others did. Not me. I’m part of the Playhouse district. I plan to continue support the biz here.
Yet, tree supporters would be more accepting of the biz/govt decision if they felt the a better choice of replacement trees were chosen. If they really felt their position was not just heard, but understood.
As it is, when the average Pasadenan hears about the current city plans, they usually aren’t supportive. This is a hint that the decision made is lacking.
An unwise decision was made originally by the city/biz to plant the ficus/carrotwoods without proper thought (or maintenance!). Now, I’m afraid this latest crop of biz/govt leaders is leading us all toward the repeat of another unwise direction.