I think Cathay is right. Having just the three people who want to kill the tree in the first place to review the firms is what happened in the first place. Would there be leading questions? would the firms be told that the tree must come down, how do they propose to do it? If the firm found that the tree can be saved, will the Three then say Thank you, you may leave, Next.
It has been made clear that the mayor is not interested in the community's opinion, or desires, and seems to be annoyed that we have the temerity to question her orders in the first place. I have heard nothing about their considering a pruning of the the tree's alleged 'dead wood'. It's akin to going to the doctor for an infected ingrown toenail and his answer is to amputate the entire foot.
IF the firms find that there is dead wood on the Meeker Oak, cut it out and save the rest of the tree. The mayor's desire to prevent a limb falling onto traffic can easily be remedied by removing that part of the tree that overhangs the road. It doesn't call for removing the entire tree.
And again, the chances of a limb one, falling onto a vehicle is still far, far lower than a drunk driver colliding with another car.
Please explain the inappropriate content below.
