Condition of trees? Dead.
Cause of death? Chain saw.
Chief suspect? City of Richardson.
Statement by the accused? Sorry, not sorry.
On a Saturday morning Facebook post, former Richardson City Councilmember Amir Omar passed on the news: "Without warning the residents of our city nor the neighborhood most effected, 43 trees that were between 35-45 years old (lifespan of 150-250 years) were cut down on the West Renner median. Despite many updates related to the Point North and water pressure project, not once was this outcome mentioned."
On Saturday afternoon, the City of Richardson posted their own Facebook post. Excerpt:
We made a mistake.Unfortunately, that’s what happened when we failed to notify the community prior to this week’s removal of 43 trees in the Renner Road median between Point North Parkway/Tam O’Shanter Lane and Custer Parkway. This removal happened as a result of the City’s ongoing installation of a new, 30-inch water line that will provide vital water supply for residents and businesses in our northwest quadrant.
To be clear, we would have strongly preferred to save these trees. When the City studied line alignment options prior to finalizing project plans last summer, we explored every alternative to achieve this end.
Unfortunately, none were feasible due to the already crowded right-of-way. Alternative alignments could have also damaged or removed trees north and south of the road that provide significant shade and buffering to adjacent homes.
Regardless, we fully intended to share information proactively, and publicly, about the planned median tree removal well before it occurred. We believed such activity would occur later in the project. However, due to a communication failure, City staff and elected officials were unaware that the contractor’s tree removal efforts were happening this week.
Because we were caught off guard, so were you. This is unacceptable and we know it, so we sincerely and deeply apologize. We will also do everything in our power to make sure this never happens again.
Source: Richardson Today.
As apologies go, this one has the appearance of the correct ingredients: expressing regret, accepting responsibility, making restitution, promising change, and requesting forgiveness. Still, somehow it felt incomplete. Let's examine each ingredient in more detail.
Expressing regret: the City said "we made a mistake" and "we sincerely and deeply apologize." But for what is the City apologizing? Not for cutting down the trees. The mistake is that they "failed to notify the community" despite "fully intend[ing] to share information proactively, and publicly, about the planned median tree removal well before it occurred." How much lead time were they planning to give the public? Elsewhere in the statement, the City says, "...prior to finalizing project plans last summer." They aren't apologizing for not involving the public in the planning process. They aren't apologizing for keeping these plans from the public for a year. They even kept the plans from the City Council, despite briefing the Council more than once on the project. If I were on the City Council, I'd be pissed that the City kept me in the dark about something likely to arouse suspicion about the City's intentions. It looks to me like all they are apologizing for is that they didn't get to announce this a little closer to when it actually happened. This is not what transparency looks like.
Accepting responsibility: The City does this, kinda. They say, "We made a mistake." But the City wants to share the blame. "City staff and elected officials were unaware that the contractor’s tree removal efforts were happening this week." So, is the contractor partly at fault for doing exactly what they were hired to do, but doing it earlier than planned? Is this the first time a contractor has been blamed for work coming in ahead of schedule? If I were the contractor, I'd be pissed.
Making restitution: Here's how the City covers that. "Please know that the City’s plans include installation of a significant number of new ornamental trees in the median once the new water line project is complete." I'll leave it to readers to judge whether newly planted ornamental trees is "restitution" for the destruction of mature trees with trunk diameters of 18 inches or more.
Promising change: The City has this covered, too, kinda. "We will also do everything in our power to make sure this never happens again." Good intentions are like New Year's resolutions — soon forgotten. Unless the City's statement includes some specific behavioral changes being instituted, this promise is worth no more than annual pledges to exercise more or to quit smoking. What those behavioral changes might be are nowhere explained in the statement. Good intentions is all we get. I hope the City Council presses the City on more specific action items to prevent recurrence.
Requesting forgiveness: I do find a straightforward apology, but I don't find any words in the statement requesting forgiveness. There's an old saying, "It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission." Maybe that's the City's modus operandi. The City could have involved the public in the planning process itself a year ago. It could have told the public about it anytime in the year since the plans were made. Now that it's a fait accompli, the City only has to weather the storm for a day or two and hope the public outrage moves on. It helps the City that this happened on a Friday before the July 4th weekend. The public's interest is already elsewhere. And there's no Council meeting Monday where Councilmembers might ask uncomfortable questions. Coincidence? Probably, but what a convenient coincidence it is.
"Forgive the blade's dance,
Nature's pillars stripped away,
Sorry, not sorry."
— h/t ChatGPT
No comments:
Post a Comment