The Ojai Post

Suza, your photo! Yikes!!

If you have substantive, legitimate, and pertinent issues with Suza nor any other candidate, you could bring them up here. Otherwise, why not leave the myspace slams at myspace?

gypsy boots. Really. Is that your moniker? wow.

I first met the real Gypsy Boots in Fern Dell (located in Griffith Park in Hollywood where Western Av. becomes Los Feliz Dr.) in 1961. He was an intelligent, intense, personable, humorous, lovably goofy, incredibly fit and deeply kind and caring person. I was amazed when I saw him again in Ojai in the late 80's. The good qualities he embodied had only improved over the years. I never once heard Gypsy Boots say an unkind word about anyone, and I believe that anyone who wants to comment using his name ought to either honor the man or find a different online handle.

Nice to see these comments about the real Gypsy Boots! I recall first meeting him at a National Health Federation convention or other alternative health conference, back in the late 1970's, while promoting my first yoga book. He and the other alternative health leaders were original thinkers, decades ahead of their time! It was fun to see him in Ojai every so often, at Rainbow Bridge and other places...

I was curious to see if he was still alive:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gypsy_Boots

I knew him for years, he frequently came by my honey stand at the farmers market in T.O. , he was a very sharp guy, and very stoked on life, I heard many stories about his exploits. He died a few years ago, He was in his 90's I think, he really got sort of famous when he was first on the Steve Allen show .

Gypsy Boots, you slob! Suza's hair matches her heart...

Let us remember the previous term of our former mayor. The burning issue of her tenure was the fate of two elderly oak trees in Libby Park, overhanging the children's play space. At the end of their natural life span, they were shedding limbs and threatening the safety of the playing children. Our esteemed former mayor decided the city's budget and the safety of our children were best served by delaying the removal of these lovely, but dead, dangerous and liability prone oaks week after week, encouraging disruption of the meetings, and instead proposing that tens of thousands of dollars be spent on enclosing the oaks in a large fenced hospice. Goodbye, playground, goodbye budget. The matter ended with a near riot as tree-sitters obstructed the removal of the trees. The police presence and other safety personnel cost the city additional thousands. Yep, in these economic times we need Suza in there, fighting for the dignity of dead oak trees over the safety of children and fiscal responsibility.

Green at what cost, Suza?

To "I remember it well"

Even making allowances for your narrow, perjorative, and one-sided depiction of events, what I see in the story you tell is a brave council member willing to risk public opinion in order to explore alternatives to protect our trees and our environment.

You say those trees were dead; as I recall, there were others who strongly disagreed. What you describe is exactly the kind of council member I want -- one who is prepared to "go out on a limb" to protect our environment and the beauty and spirit of our sacred valley.

...and weren't there 4 other council members?

Dear "I remember it well,"

I would be happy to meet with you at the Ojai Coffee Roasting Company or wherever you feel comfortable, to discuss what happened when Council reconsidered the removal of the three Oak trees.

I agree that the situation with the trees in Libbey park could have been handled more intelligently.

We now know that it is a mistake to build a playground over the root system of Oak trees, and underneath their heavy branches.

It was not my decision to order police presence when groups of school children, teachers, families and other local residents gathered to protest the removal of the trees.

Once upon a time, Ojai was a beautiful tree-shaded town. Ojai avenue and the arcade was shaded by mighy Oaks. There were Oak groves where now there are parking lots. The entrance to Libbey Park was densely shaded.

The people of Ojai were protesting the removal of trees long before I came on the scene.

At the public meeting on Tuesday, February 22, 2000, of the 19 Ojai Valley residents who spoke, only two opposed reconsideration of a previous decision to remove and replace the trees. Many said that the city should set an example and try to save the trees, estimated at being over 150 years old.

The larger issue is that we humans have to learn to live in harmony with the trees of Ojai. Our Libbey Park presents a wonderul opportunity to educate people how to preserve our Oak tree heritage.

Ironically, during the time of this Oak tree controversy, several "healthy" trees fell unexpectedly. Arborists, like doctors, can estimate the life-span of the patient...

I find myself in the absurd position of defending an anti-tree stance.

I’m back, and thank you for your thoughtful response, Suza, and no-thank-you to Thanks For the Memories. I admit, I wrote in an angry shorthand. In the telling, the point was lost and I came across as a pro-development, anti-nature angry person. I’m angry, but for different reasons, so this restatement of my point is long.

The trees are not the point.

Or rather, the trees are a convenient mask for a greater point. There is much to be gained by living in harmony with nature. Suza, I do not disagree with your pro-tree stance, nor your pro-animal stance, nor your pro-bike and anti-carbon-emission stance. I’m as pro-green as green gets.

The point is I object to your taking a fairy-tale viewpoint of a very real problem: the impact of humans on fragile environments not made for human habitation above a minimal level. Ojai is ground zero for that problem, and it may well be past the point of no return. By that I mean the human habitation, the quantity of humans living in Ojai and their basic survival necessities, are too much to maintain the delicate beauty of Ojai in days of yore. By the way, you can replace “Ojai” in this discussion with any modern human gathering place that still has a shred of its original, pre-indigenous charm and beauty.

It’s about human nature. People will flock to live in environments of natural beauty. Those environments are quite frequently fragile and can maintain their natural state only with minimal human habitation. As more people arrive, even well-meaning, bike-riding, animal-and-tree-loving people, a burden is placed on the environment. There is no “zero footprint.” Even if the people are the natural aboriginal peoples of the area, hunter-gatherers living in the open, human activities will stress the original state of the site. In primitive conditions, a balance is sometimes achieved where the human burden is limited by population control in the form of disease, natural disaster, or lack of food. Even so (witness archeological studies of the Anasazi in the Southwest), humans tend to persist and disregard the pre-human ecological balance in order to persist.

The Chumash did not have zero footprint on Ojai, but they had far, far less impact than even the same number of modern peoples. They also lived in a wetter, more arboreal Ojai. The summers were not as punishing if you could wear no clothing, take a dip in the various creeks, and rest in the shade. Now people hide in their houses, turn on the fan or AC and create ecological disaster, all to maintain their foothold in Paradise. It’s the reality, unless Ojai only sells property to human salamanders, and I wish someone would acknowledge it.

The natural environment of Ojai is and was a great treasure, Suza, and I respect your enthusiasm for that treasure. The fact is, people will want to live here, and they continue to do so. Anti-development forces limit human occupancy, and for very good reasons. The Ojai Valley as it is now, much less as it was, cannot support even limited human population growth. Now we get into a basic Adam Smith, Keynsian economic situation. When demand goes up, and the quantity is limited, so does the price. Ojai property values, even in this doleful economic time, resist the downward draft because there are still people with enough money to purchase a ticket to Shangri-la.

Ojai, like it or not, inhospitable though the economy may be through global situation or local politics, will turn into Montecito, an enclave of the super-rich. That may be one way to achieve a steady state, but not one popular with egalitarian types. I do not say that mockingly, but if humans are to remain in Ojai, in a limited amount, that is the necessary economic outcome.

At the other extreme, an alternative is to deny all humans the right of habitation in the Ojai Valley, make it a preserve of some type. Fires will burn, floods will wash out gullies, but that’s the pre-human reality. Barring some global pandemic, that isn’t going to happen, and certainly not through local politics.

Is there a third path? Humans have been, generally and historically speaking, lousy at finding one. But it’s not found by focusing all local human power on the fate of a few elderly trees. As much as I admire the “Think Globally, Act Locally” mindset, it is far too big a problem to solve with the usual salves to the liberal, green conscience. It’s not found by wearing hemp while you drive your car on 33. It’s not because you bring your own bag to the local store selling local organic produce, though those are all little tiny feel-good steps. I admire them, I support them, but it’s a losing game – losing by inches if not acres.

My point is that human habitation above and beyond a few nomadic primitive tribes vulnerable to all of the natural world will, and does, deplete Ojai above and beyond sustainability levels.

Given that there ARE people here, that the existing residents do not want to live in Montecito or only visit a non-populated nature preserve, given (forgive my cynicism) that there is no perfect solution to the constant small degradations upon the natural beauty of Ojai, we have to pick our fights. We have to think macrocosm, not microcosm. We have to stop hugging doomed trees at civic expense and think outside the box with what can be better served with limited human, natural, and economic resources. And for all your good karma, Suza, all that I quite honestly admire about you, your solutions are as myopic as the growth-favoring “people first” elements on the local politics scene.

I said at the beginning that I was angry. Frustrated is a better word. I’m frustrated that no one admits the basic realities of human habitation in Ojai, and even those who appreciate it, like you, Suza, will not move past faded ‘60’s feel-good paradigms.

What did I do in this situation? Well, my basic locution on the OP is misleading. My “here” is no longer Ojai. In 2000, I moved away, partly due to my frustration as described above – I didn’t want to stick around for “Paradise Lost” – and partly to live in a more varied human enclave, although one with less natural beauty. I live in a big city that’s already raped the existing environment and take small trips to lovely places. It’s the best balance I can think of. I only ask that those who remain in those lovely places take their stewardship seriously.

Ojai needs candidates that can see the forest for the trees. I challenge you to be one, Suza, and not get bogged down in a mindset that embraces simple answers and a few dead trees.

a few more facts to consider: when the decision was made many years ago to expand and rebuild the play structure in its present location in Libbey Park, the construction was completed in violation of the City's Tree Ordinance, which specifically prohibits changing the grade beneath the canopies of protected trees .. many significant roots of the now deceased trees were cut during the excavation of the trenches that were required for the concrete footings and curbs that were installed around the perimeter of the play structure .. and the area inside the perimeter was covered with 18-inches of sand, which was also a violation of the City's Tree Ordinance .. after the first two doomed and dying trees were cut down, the sand was removed and bark was distributed in the area beneath the play structure, as it had been determined that bark was more appropriate and effective in terms of protecting the well-being of both children and the surviving trees .. ironically, the company that manufactured the play structure originally recommended that it should NOT be built under the trees .. I know this, because I served as a volunteer for 18 months on the City's Tree Care Task Force which was convened by Sue Horgan following the Council's decision in 2000 to remove the first two of the four trees that were adversely impacted by the project .. ironically, a couple of months ago, a letter to the editor in the OVN addressed the fact that it's too hot during the summer for kids to enjoy the new play structure because there is no shade .. it seems that the decision to expand the play area beneath the canopies of four large oak trees was ill-advised in more than one respect: the trees are now gone, and the City failed to adhere to one of its own ordinances .....

a few more facts to consider: when the decision was made many years ago to expand and rebuild the play structure in its present location in Libbey Park, the construction was completed in violation of the City's Tree Ordinance, which specifically prohibits changing the grade beneath the canopies of protected trees .. many significant roots of the now deceased trees were cut during the excavation of the trenches that were required for the concrete footings and curbs that were installed around the perimeter of the play structure .. and the area inside the perimeter was covered with 18-inches of sand, which was also a violation of the City's Tree Ordinance .. after the first two doomed and dying trees were cut down, the sand was removed and bark was distributed in the area beneath the play structure, as it had been determined that bark was more appropriate and effective in terms of protecting the well-being of both children and the surviving trees .. ironically, the company that manufactured the play structure originally recommended that it should NOT be built under the trees .. I know this, because I served as a volunteer for 18 months on the City's Tree Care Task Force which was convened by Sue Horgan following the Council's decision in 2000 to remove the first two of the four trees that were adversely impacted by the project .. ironically, a couple of months ago, a letter to the editor in the OVN addressed the fact that it's too hot during the summer for kids to enjoy the play structure because there is no shade .. it seems that the decision to expand the play area beneath the canopies of four majestic oak trees was ill-advised in more than one respect: the trees are now gone, and the City failed to adhere to one of its own public ordinances .....

a few more facts to consider: when the decision was made many years ago to expand and rebuild the play structure in its present location in Libbey Park, the construction was completed in violation of the City's Tree Ordinance, which specifically prohibits changing the grade beneath the canopies of protected trees .. many significant roots of the now deceased trees were cut during the excavation of the trenches that were required for the concrete footings and curbs that were installed around the perimeter of the play structure .. and the area inside the perimeter was covered with 18-inches of sand, which was also a violation of the City's Tree Ordinance .. after the first two doomed and dying trees were cut down, the sand was removed and bark was distributed in the area beneath the play structure, as it had been determined that bark was more appropriate and effective in terms of protecting the well-being of both playing children and the surviving trees .. ironically, the company that manufactured the play structure originally recommended that it should NOT be built under the trees .. I know this because I served as a volunteer for 18 months on the City's Tree Care Task Force which was convened by Sue Horgan following the Council's decision in 2000 to remove the first two of the four trees that were adversely impacted by the project .. ironically, a couple of months ago, a letter to the editor in the OVN addressed the fact that it's too hot during the summer for kids to enjoy the play structure because there is no shade .. it seems that the decision to expand the play area beneath the canopies of four majestic oak trees was ill-advised in more than one respect: the trees are now gone, taking their shade with them, and the City missed an opportunity to adhere to one of its own public ordinances .....

oops .. sorry for the multiple posts of same comment ..
for some reason my computer kept telling me that the server wasn't responding ..
but I guess it was .. don't you just love technology ?

Vickie, that just shows the limits of politics and regulation. Stuff happens. And somehow, we're back on the trees again.

As for the playground, the necessary shade could have been and can still easily be provided, not by trees with vulnerable roots, but an arbor with trained vines, which would be lovely. The structure can be made of recycled plastic for durability. Both boards and dense netting are available from green sources. See buidinggreen.com.

That's the kind of proactive thinking I'm talking about. Don't abuse the trees (here I am, talking about trees again), what's wrong with a man-made structure made of recycled, durable and economic sources?

But Ojai won't stand for plastic, even recycled plastic, even when it meets the needs of the people, the planet, and the budget. It's just not appropriate for this Marie-Antoinette fantasy of a rural refuge, like the Petit Hameau.

Pretending to live "in harmony with nature" is just that, a pretense. Why can't Ojai admit it lives in the modern world, when it serves the natural world better? This is the 21st century, not the 60's.