Go Set a Straw Man

The conversation started out about Trees. We have now apparently moved on to Straw Men.

In this morning’s Trentonian the perpetually confused LA Parker, speaking no doubt for many who don’t quite understand the principles at issue here, thinks that we’ve talked enough about the raid on Trenton’s Franklin Park in December which liberated a perfectly healthy, 40-year old, 35-foot Norway Spruce tree for temporary use of about 3 weeks as the official 2014 Christmas tree in from of City Hall, on its way to be mulched.

At the very end of a long, rambling piece that drew mostly on several strong childhood memories associated with trees (Hey! do you think LA heard the news about Harper Lee’s new novel? Sure sounds like somebody dusted off their copy of “To Kill a Mockingbird” yesterday ), Scout, uh, Mr. Parker concludes with what he surely intended to be a statement that would put an end to all this tree talk. “There is not a tree alive, no birch, pine, poplar, spruce, maple, oak, chestnut, or ash with more significance than human life.”

Of course, a tree is not worth a human life. Duh!

The thing is, LA, no one has been saying that. Not Lisa Kasabach, head of “Trees for Trenton,” quoted today by Mr. Parker and last week in the Times as being critical of the city’s act of arboricide. And not any of the unnamed “others” (whoever THEY may be…) who, how did LA put it? Oh, yeah, “blurted out their disappointment” over the incident.

Mr. Parker also tries to put the matter in context by saying “[T]his is not the end of the world nor is this tree issue more important than education, public safety, drug addiction, or myriad Trenton problems.”

And that is another straw man. Parker is falsely attributing outrageous claims to his opponents, which makes him sound much more reasonable when he knocks those claims, the straw man, down.

But the thing of it is, No one is saying any of this!

No one, that is, other than Mr. Parker.

There are certainly other issues facing the city. I’ve written about a few over the years. Not one of them precludes saying anything about any others.

For instance, when Mr. Parker wrote about the new Cadwalader Park tennis facility as being a great and valuable addition to the city, did anyone say “a tennis court is not more important than education, public safety, drug addiction, or myriad Trenton problems”?

Nope.

Or when he headlined “Trenton High should be able to save the clock tower,” who wrote in response, “There is not a clock tower alive, no big hand, no little hand, clock face, big bell, springs, gears or counterweights with more significance than a human life”?

Nobody.

So, for Mr. Parker to wag his finger at Ms. Kasabach and … the Others… about this, he’s picking the wrong target and using the wrong tools.

As so often happens with him, he actually made a point that got to the heart of the matter. However, not realizing what he’d done, he blithely ran right past it and didn’t return for the rest of his piece. He wrote, “While city officials acted inappropriately, this unfortunate extraction can be remedied with a replacement tree and an apology.”

And that, in a nutshell, is exactly the point. Trouble is, so far, we haven’t seen anything approaching an apology. Which, you know, kind of requires ad admission that the original action was somehow, sorta, WRONG. That mistakes were made. Policies not followed. Laws possibly broken. An apology, we are nowhere near.

Instead:

“City spokesman Michael Walker said Jackson is a supporter of tree planting and would be willing to join Trees for Trenton and other neighborhood associations to plant trees.”

“I care about trees,” Jackson said. “I know their importance to us and I want to make sure we preserve them. I’m always willing to partner with community organizations to make sure we do what is best for the public good. Next time we’ll have more time to work with those who are interested in helping us get the appropriate tree for the city. Once the weather clears up, I would love to meet the community (in Franklin Park) and plant a new tree.”

“We only had two (offers) and they were not feasible for our use,” Jackson said.

So, the Public Works Department decided to use one from Franklin Park, and the decision to cut down the tree was 100 percent within the confines of the law, Jackson said.

And, an OPRA request that I filed responded to with Bupkus.

Not even an “Oops” has been forthcoming.

Yes, Mr. Parker, “this unfortunate extraction can [go a long way towards] be[ing] remedied with a replacement tree and an apology.” Notice that slight editing. Whereas a swift apology and an offer to replace the tree would have been enough to put this issue behind them – and, really, what could have conceivably kept them from doing that when the issue first arose?? – the stubborn and furtive statements and behavior exhibited by the Administration since now require a fuller response. After all, as Harper Lee once wrote, “Best way to clear the air is to have it all out in the open.”

To their credit, City Hall is finally starting to show some life. I wrote yesterday that my December 8 OPRA request for information was closed on January 5 when I was told the City had Not One Piece of information on this in their files. I emailed the Clerk’s Office yesterday, and used Mayor Jackson’s own statements as strongly suggesting there had to be information on which he was basing his statements. I sent that note at 11:34 yesterday. At 3:56, a little over four hours later, I started to receive information that couldn’t be found after one month.

Hey, it’s a start.

Mayor Jackson claimed that advertisements were placed. The city sent a PDF graphic that is claimed ran as an ad in the Times in October. I am seeking to verify this.

Mayor Jackson also claimed that those ads generated two candidates: “one tree was inadequate, Mayor Eric Jackson said, and it was difficult to access the other one,” according to the press account. I was sent two photographs, with no other explanation or description other than a title. Here they are. This is “Bordentown.”

This is “Hightstown”

These look like perfectly lovely, “Ho, Ho, Ho”-worthy candidates. I’d like to know how come these were deemed inadequate.

I’m glad the City is starting to become a little more forthcoming with information. It’s a good start.