My Noble, Truth-Dealing Editor,
The City sent out notice that they are going to remove that crazy old tree on my street that's leaning like it's about to fall over. Well, that's just great. In the process, they'll probably mess up the sidewalk, or break the water main, and then the street will be flooded with water and cement trucks and there'll be no place to park.
And then, they'll probably plant a new tree in place of the hazardous old one. Everyone knows that new trees are no good, because they aren't big enough. And once they do get bigger, the City insists on wasting our tax money trimming them and removing "unhealthy" ones like the one that I'm just sure is going to fall and crush my car every time I'm unfortunate enough to have to park next to it. So what if the tree is unhealthy? I'm not the healthiest individual in the world either, but nobody's going to remove me.
The cost of tree removal is about 2% of the relevant part of the City budget portion that includes work of that nature, which means that at the current rate of arboreal projects, our taxes are going to pay for 73% more of this nonsense by 2013, if we're all still around by then. The City never should have planted that tree, and it's outrageous that they are now about to cause all kinds of nightmarish disruption by removing it. For anyone who is not thrown off by all of my highly technical explanations, it should be perfectly obvious what needs to be done.
Milhous K. "Grr" Sanka