Majestic Oaks Need Our Protection

It has been stated that a civilized society can be judged by the way it cares for its elderly. In our community, the senior citizens are held in high esteem. They are cared for and looked after by a variety of public and private agencies.

But I am not writing about elderly citizens. I am referring to living things that are many times older than any person: the valley oak, our city’s namesake and the logo we use on city vehicles, literature and buildings.

When I moved to Thousand Oaks more than 26 years ago, I was glad to know that these majestic trees were protected by an oak tree ordinance. However, over the years, I have seen many healthy oaks cut down and pushed into piles to be removed like yesterday’s garbage.

Before anyone gets the wrong impression, I am not a tree hugger, Sierra Clubber or even a staunch environmentalist. As a matter of fact, I am a contractor whose livelihood depends on construction.

I am, however, a realist. And the reality of the situation is that thriving oak trees have been removed in our community to make way for development and that this destruction of our natural resource is justified by replacing a 300- to 500-year-old tree with three juvenile oaks, most of which are not even the same variety. This is no “replacement” because even our grandchildren’s grandchildren will not be able to enjoy a tree of the same stature as the one removed.

Most people in Thousand Oaks believe that oak trees are protected and that harming or destroying them will result in severe penalties. Why then are so many oaks being destroyed and removed in the name of progress and why does it seem that this destruction has escalated recently?

I do not know the answer and I’m not about to accuse anyone of impropriety. I am proposing that we stick to our guns and our oak tree ordinance to stop this destruction of our namesake.

If a developer or private citizen purchases land with sizable oaks, then he should know that these trees are protected and must not be removed. Then their architect can design a project that is complemented by the oaks rather than mow them down to provide more square footage or increased units. If this cannot be done economically, then he should not build on the site and probably shouldn’t have purchased the property. Oak trees are a preexisting condition that must be taken into account before purchasing land for development.

The citizens of our community rely on the council and Planning Commission to protect these trees. With all of the disagreements, name calling and side choosing in our city, this should be at least one issue that we can agree on.

Please do not support any variances that destroy this irreplaceable natural resource.

TOM HOLLOW

Newbury Park