Palm Springs removing racist trees

[Kramania]

No, really.

PALM SPRINGS, Calif. - Complaints from longtime residents of a historically African-American neighborhood near a Palm Springs golf course have led to the removal of a line of trees they claim were planted for racists reasons in the 1960s, according to The Desert Sun.

At an informal meeting with neighborhood residents Sunday, Dec. 17, Palm Springs Mayor Robert Moon, along with other city officials, promised residents they would remove the trees and a chain-link fence along the Crossley Tract property lines as soon as possible.

In a previous Desert Sun report, residents of the neighborhood said the line of trees "remained a lasting remnant of the history of segregation in the city." Residents also claim the invasive tamarisks, which block views of the golf course and San Jacinto mountains, have depressed property values and prevented black families from accumulating wealth in their property for the past half century. Tamarisk trees, also known by the name "tamarix," range from large, evergreen trees to small, shrubby trees.

Palm Springs City Manager David Ready says the tree removal wouldn't be immediate because it needs full city council approval. Arborists also need to be consulted and the project needs to be put up for bid. Ready estimates that the trees could be down within three months.

The cost to remove the line of trees is estimated to cost the city of Palm Springs $169,000, according to the New York Post.

So, yeah. Apparently a black community thinks a row of trees separating them from a golf course is racist. So instead of being separated by a row of trees they will now instead be separated by a chain-link fence. So, uh, progress? And where are all the environmentalists? Removing trees because "muh feels" should be a bad thing. And in case it wasn't obvious, I think this is stupid and don't support it.

So, thoughts?

[Topoliani]

This is one of the most stupid things I have ever come across on this site.

Not you OP, the article itself

[Sovaal]

Says their invasive, so I approve this measure.

[Thermodolia]

How long till we can build a base on the moon?

[CGW23]

promised residents they would remove the trees and a chain-link fence along the Crossley Tract property lines

So instead of being separated by a row of trees they will now instead be separated by a chain-link fence. So, uh, progress?

Not being replaced with anything as far as I can tell.

[Senkaku]

They're invasive and soak up TONS of water in a drought-ridden state, and if the community wants it, I really don't see the issue, besides people like yourself, OP, who want to manufacture outrage.

[Baltenstein]

Pictured: racist trees

[Senkaku]

No, really.

PALM SPRINGS, Calif. - Complaints from longtime residents of a historically African-American neighborhood near a Palm Springs golf course have led to the removal of a line of trees they claim were planted for racists reasons in the 1960s, according to The Desert Sun.

At an informal meeting with neighborhood residents Sunday, Dec. 17, Palm Springs Mayor Robert Moon, along with other city officials, promised residents they would remove the trees and a chain-link fence along the Crossley Tract property lines as soon as possible.

In a previous Desert Sun report, residents of the neighborhood said the line of trees "remained a lasting remnant of the history of segregation in the city." Residents also claim the invasive tamarisks, which block views of the golf course and San Jacinto mountains, have depressed property values and prevented black families from accumulating wealth in their property for the past half century. Tamarisk trees, also known by the name "tamarix," range from large, evergreen trees to small, shrubby trees.

Palm Springs City Manager David Ready says the tree removal wouldn't be immediate because it needs full city council approval. Arborists also need to be consulted and the project needs to be put up for bid. Ready estimates that the trees could be down within three months.

The cost to remove the line of trees is estimated to cost the city of Palm Springs $169,000, according to the New York Post.

So, yeah. Apparently a black community thinks a row of trees separating them from a golf course is racist. So instead of being separated by a row of trees they will now instead be separated by a chain-link fence. So, uh, progress?

Did you not read the article past the headline? The community wants it, the trees are invasive, block views, and depress property values, and it's going to be a pretty piddling amount of money.

And where are all the environmentalists? Removing trees because "muh feels" should be a bad thing.

Yeah, if you're enough of a partisan hack to reduce all environmentalists to literal tree-huggers and assume all trees are created equal. Tamarisks fucking suck.

And in case it wasn't obvious, I think this is stupid and don't support it.
So, thoughts?

My thoughts are that the main reason you care is because it plays into your silly attempts to craft a narrative in which unreasonable alt-left SJW cucks are oppressing the country (especially white people) and destroying their own communities, and not because you actually have even a basic understanding of what's going on or interest in the city of Palm Springs.

[Thermodolia]

They're invasive and soak up TONS of water in a drought-ridden state, and if the community wants it, I really don't see the issue, besides people like yourself, OP, who want to manufacture outrage.

Saying that they are invasive and a environmental threat is a better reason than "they racist!!1!1!1"

[Senkaku]

Pictured: racist trees

(Image)

"but if we cut them down then we still have a swastika!"
"damn...."

an arborist's catch-22

[Skyhooked]

The primary reason was about property value. Owners just used race card opportunity to help their mercantile needs, but the headlines are just awesome. I imagine, that such topics are a klondike for journalsits.

Just read: "Racist trees". Folk say- Impossible! Outrage! Poppycock! And read this article outta their pure curiosity. And then SJW and right-wingers engage in heated debates, and with number of visits rating jumps up to the top of the Everest. And with such rating, business owners are ready to even sell their souls just to place their advertisment. Journalists and owners of the site literally swim in money like ol' Scrooge.

[Senkaku]

They're invasive and soak up TONS of water in a drought-ridden state, and if the community wants it, I really don't see the issue, besides people like yourself, OP, who want to manufacture outrage.

Saying that they are invasive and a environmental threat is a better reason than "they racist!!1!1!1"

I believe that was added on there? I don't see why everyone is fixating on this, there appears to be a considerable list of community concerns, and the city doesn't seem to believe it's unreasonable at all. Again, this seems more just like something for right-wing hacks to manufacture outrage about without taking it in beyond the absolute shallowest level.

[The New California Republic]

Pictured: racist trees

(Image)

"but if we cut them down then we still have a swastika!"
"damn...."

an arborist's catch-22

Burn down the entire forest.

Problem solved.

[Iebrelara]

When there's a tree in your way, you instantly know it's being racist.

[Purpelia]

This is what happens when you let the SJW win.

[Skyhooked]

This is what happens when you let the SJW win.

Like I told before, I assume, that SJW have nothing to do with this. That's all about journalists. One lucky headline, and folk flock to the site just to see that.

[Topoliani]

The primary reason was about property value. Owners just used race card opportunity to help their mercantile needs, but the headlines are just awesome. I imagine, that such topics are a klondike for journalsits.

Just read: "Racist trees". Folk say- Impossible! Outrage! Poppycock! And read this article outta their pure curiosity. And then SJW and right-wingers engage in heated debates, and with number of visits rating jumps up to the top of the Everest. And with such rating, business owners are ready to even sell their souls just to place their advertisment. Journalists and owners literally swim in money like ol' Scrooge.

This

[Cerillium]

If they want the trees down, grant the permission and then have the resident pay for it out of pocket if they want the view cleared. Not everyone wants the trees removed.

[Dytarma]

How the hell can trees be racist? I bet it's leaf shape and/or bark color.

/s

[Senkaku]

This is what happens when you let the SJW win.

Like I told before, I assume, that SJW have nothing to do with this. That's all about journalists. One lucky headline, and folk flock to the site just to see that.

Yep. Outrage manufacturing is a profitable business and they know plenty of people will bite (@all of us )

[Skyhooked]

"but if we cut them down then we still have a swastika!"
"damn...."

an arborist's catch-22

Burn down the entire forest.

Problem solved.

You've just offended Smokey the Bear. And that's cause he is a bear? Racist. So it's not that easy.

[Principality of the Raix]

I heard about this, in a mannerism I am going to say this. The Left or Democrats have always been about, peoples rights, feelings, emotions and etc. While getting rich off of this stuff, and at the same time these identity politics have gone too far. First it was a "Racist" Horse, now it is "Racist" Tree's. What's next? The sky is racist?

I Understand the reasoning for the "Racist" Trees being planted to cut off the golf course from the neighbor hood, however should not the people that planted them should be punished or the city and not the trees? I mean honestly, why remove something that helps the environment of the city. At the same time, when you remove them; You are basically destroying part of the environment, just to remove a few trees. So in the end, either way you flip this coin the Democrats are proving hypocrites.

Or better yet, the Grass is Racist cause all the "good" yards or "White" peoples yards are greener then those in the hood.

Just saying, there is a point that you take this too far and honestly this is ridiculous.

[The New California Republic]

Burn down the entire forest.

Problem solved.

You've just offended Smokey the Bear. And that's cause he is a bear? Racist. So it's not that easy.

Why? Did Smokey Bear plant those trees in the shape of a swastika?

[Purpelia]

This is what happens when you let the SJW win.

Like I told before, I assume, that SJW have nothing to do with this. That's all about journalists. One lucky headline, and folk flock to the site just to see that.

It has everything to do with the SJW. You don't have to physically instigate something for it to be your fault. You just have to be the one who created the environment within which it can occur. That's why we blame people who shout violent rhetoric for when someone else goes and does something nasty. And it's the same thing here.

Whilst the SJW may not be the ones instigating this particular case they are the ones who have brought pointless manufactured race outrage over trivial things into the spotlight to the point where anything race related has become headline news. And by doing so, by trivializing real race, gender and similar issues and turning them into scandal fodder they have created fertile ground for both greedy people who wish to exploit the system and the sensationalist reporters that feed off them.

They are the ones that s**t out the stinking pile upon which now gorge the flies that spread the plague. So every time something like this happens it is their fault.

[Skyhooked]

You've just offended Smokey the Bear. And that's cause he is a bear? Racist. So it's not that easy.

Why? Did Smokey Bear plant those trees in the shape of a swastika?

Cause you know, only you can prevent forest fires.