Natural History museum to uproot historic trees for more parking space

[Klorox]

LINK

Witte may uproot trees for more parking Web Posted: 05/24/2007 01:26 AM CDT Karen Grace KENS 5 Eyewitness News The Witte Museum is raising eyebrows from those who say the natural history museum is plotting to destroy natural history. Trees that have been on the grounds adjacent to the museum since the turn of the century could now be replaced by a parking garage. Destroying nature goes against their nature, Witte President Marise McDermott said. "Actually, you know we are a natural history museum," she said. Some say building a parking garage on this historical landscape would be wrong. "How much more of Brackenridge Park do you plan to gobble up?" said Larry DeMartino, who opposes the parking garage. The museum says while they hope the city will expand their lease to double its land size, the parking garage would not be on their property. "It's the Brackenridge Park parking facility, but we are working with them," McDermott said. "The Witte has had the same 75 parking spaces since 1926." She also made it clear that any trees would be relocated, not destroyed. "Every tree is a precious tree," McDermott said. However, DeMartino fears that 144 trees with historic value would be sacrificed for 342 parking spaces. "(The trees have been here) since the days of the Spanish settlers," he said. "They want to deprive these people whose taxes have paid to keep this park up." The issue will be discussed at City Hall on May 31.

[Larry_OHF]

She also made it clear that any trees would be relocated, not destroyed...

I can understand a sapling, but does anybody want to tell me how the hell you can move trees that are hundreds of years old? I've never heard of such a thing and doubt that its easy and safe. And their age is not the only factor here...its their age AND where they are located at the same time. Moving them does destroy their history, since we are talking about a museum here and preserving natural history.

[Klorox]

Exactly. An off site parking lot, where the museum provides a shuttlebus service would probably be the best thing.

[Iron Greasel]

Or build the new parking lot underground. Lots of space there.

[Winter Wolf]

Bitter irony strikes again. That article is up there on the list of "worst excuses one could give". I'd have to side against the proposed parking myself. There's just something wrong when the president of a natural history museum says that they're going to destroy natural history to make way for a museum dedicated to natural history. I'd be willing to bet there ara fair bit more people who enjoy the trees where they are than go to the museum on a regular basis.

[pritchke]

Yes the irony and hypocrisy in the world is unbelievable. Does not one human left who has a voice of people that we listen to (leaders, preachers, media gurus, etc) have one shred of honor to stand up to actually follow there principles/values and practice what they preach. To me everything is about the almighty dollar and themselves. There excuse is do has I say not as I do. Personally I am still on the fence with Dr. Phil and waiting for him to do something that he tells his clients not to.

[ 05-24-2007, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[robertthebard]

What's so historical about the landscape? Did it do something dramatic in the last hundred years, aside from being next to the Natural History Museum? Attention would be environmentalists; unless you are living in caves, and only using dropped dead wood for fires to heat them, and are wearing shoes you made yourself from the skins of animals you already found dead, quit telling people what they should or shouldn't do with the environment. Every time you start your car to drive to a rally against pollution, you pollute, and I don't care if you drive a hybrid, or ride a bicycle to work. This "we want progress, but we don't want it on any terms but our own" nonsense needs to stop soon. I just have to love the use of sensationalist terms like "historical landscape" in an article opposing a parking lot. If someone can explain to me what's historical about it, cool, but by the definition I take away from the article, it's just about being near to 100 years old, and in that case, there are a lot of "historical landscapes" that should be left alone, such as the site where Los Angeles was built, or any other city. If you're going to build a house, you have to chop down some trees.

Mr. Breckenridge, how much of the landscape have they "gobbled up" since 1926? To read this article, it's an annual event to wipe out some acreage out of the park. Do the world a favor, and get a life, and if you want to focus on some issue to make yourself feel important, try finding something that is important, or at least relevant.

[Iron Greasel]

Robert: It's a natural history museum. And and natural history deals with things that are just really old. Like dead animals. They don't have to play tricks or be politically signifigant. Besides, trees are pretty. Even in cities. Expecially in cities.

Also, I don't quite grasp the logic behind the "you harm the environment, ergo stop blaming others for doing it"-argument. You don't have to be perfect to judge others. It cannot be expected. You are telling people to shut up and stop telling others what to do. Have you ever voiced your opinion? Have you ever told someone to do something? Have you ever asked an environmentalist to quit telling people what they should and shouldn't do? See where I'm going with this?

[Firestormalpha]

Nice just like a local school around here, was named for a major defender of the everglades.

Strangley they plowed out a patch in the everglades to build it.

As for moving the trees, I didn't catch the part that said what kind they were, but they do have a massive 360 degree circular spade that's designed to that purpose.

[robertthebard]

Guess it stems from Mr. Gore. Let's pollute away, while telling others to stop. "I can buy offsets from my own company to make me look better". Yeah...that really works.

Did this guy even know there were trees there before hand, or did he see a chance to try and get his name in the paper. Statements like "How much more are you planning to gobble up" don't lend much credence to his argument, unless, of course, the museum is gobbling up acre after acre every year? Sensationalism really irks me, and this whole article is nothing but.

Do I do my part towards conservation? You bet ya', probably more than some, since I don't own a car, and will walk, ride my bike or the bus to get where I need to go. I won't, however, be seen publicly bitching about environmental concerns after just flying hundreds, or thousands of miles on a private jet, instead of taking public transportation. As I have already stated, what's historical about the landscape. That is the language used by the article, and has little to do with Natural History, other than age...

Edit: To explain my thought on the language of the article, I'd find the language more appropriate if it said this: DC plans to tear down the Lincoln Memorial for a parking lot. That is a site with historical merit, and would call for such an alarmist response, as opposed to removing a few trees.

[ 05-24-2007, 08:20 PM: Message edited by: robertthebard ]