Don't dramatize it Almanac. Calling it a showdown and trying to depict a line in the sand is just too much Fox News/TMZ type stuff. This is chance for folks to talk through issues and try to reach a resolution. Try to keep it grounded just a bit.

A group of Hillview students spent their Sunday afternoon making "tree hugger" posters; before 7:30am on Monday morning, all had been removed. Are the words of these former Oak Knoll students so threatening that they must be censored?

I can put up posters that insult. That is not difficult and if that was the intent of the Hillview students as "Tree Hugger" is a derogatory term for the most part, then who can blame someone for taking them down? There are also muni codes that disallow signage for all sorts of reasons...

This seems less a case of censorship as it is about class.

I mean if I put up signs about "Bible Thumpers" would it not have the same reaction?

I'm sorry, I had meant the term "tree hugger" as a compliment. If the public had had a chance to see the posters, they would have read quite benign comments like, "I love trees." I find it quite a stretch to interpret that as insulting. The school allows plenty of posters to be displayed (as long as they conform to the approved talking points). And yes, I agree that class is a serious and disturbing element here. Thank you for pointing out my lack of clarity. I meant to shame the Principal, not the students. I appreciate the opportunity to eludicate my meaning and intent.

I am one of the Hillview students who put up the posters. When we put up the posters, we were careful not to write anything offensive, and instead of tacking or taping them to the trees, we tied the posters around with string. The posters contained short statements such as "Save the Trees." (The one in the picture wasn't one of ours; ours were hand-done, not printed.) We left a signed letter at the office apologizing for any problems. I should want to know if there were any problems with that. It is simply that we wish to save the trees, and we think that this is a way for people to know what we are aiming at. We don't mean to sabotage the school, just support our cause.

Sorry for the misinterpretation. I am not sure of the code for signage but would guess that may be the cause for the sign disappearance. If it is a disagreeing party, that is pretty lame.

Maddie, Elissa YOU GUYS ROCK!!!
someone told us that a former Oak Knoll teacher read the city council off tonight for being so weak in opposing the school board's plan to destroy so many heritage trees.
Is there a way for Hillview students to post this teacher's plea for saving the trees and nesting birds on You Tube?
Must be some way to capture it from the city website granicus video feed.
Any helpers out there?

I'm confused. Which trees are you trying to save? The district's own staff report recommends that the big oak in the front that is being held up with poles be retained. It also recommends that the healthy oaks in the back near the baseball field be retained. Are you suggesting the school should keep the other large oak in the front? The staff report says this tree is unsafe and at risk of falling.

That other oak in front playground, next to the portable, was to be retained as shading the patio between the 2 new buildings. The district's arborist initially said it was fine, and the crew that dug around the root base told neighbors it was healthy. Now, the district's arborist is changing its tune. Seems fishy. 2 other arborists have stated that the tree is fine. Nobody can seem to trust the district any more.
On the back side, There is a 125 yr. old Joshua tree planted by the Stanford family(this was originally Jane Stanford's brother's farm "Lathrop Place"), and at least 2 other large oaks that would be removed to make room for the new soccer field.
Don't believe anything Ranella and his crew say about the trees, as they see them as mere impediments to "progress". The board is likewise being rightfully accused of showing callous disregard for community heritage and preserving natural environment for the future.

What you are saying just doesn't make sense. The district designed the new buildings around that tree, so they obviously wanted to keep it. And if it were safe, they certainly would be keeping it. I can't believe you'd really want to keep a tree that isn't safe on school grounds. That's insane.

we'll just see what 2 other certified arborists who pronounced the tree healthy last year have to say. they will review the resistograph data from the district's arborist. Those resistographs can be fickle. You should go look at the tree It has a very healthy looking canopy, no whitish cast to the trunk, the excavated root crown showed no sign of oak root fungus.

MP city council has no legal authority to force the district to do an EIR. The city council has very little power at all frankly and the quicker folks realize that the quicker they can focus energy where it counts i.e. the school board.

The district obviously wants to keep that tree if it is safe to do so. They designed the building around it.

As far as I can tell, there is a lot of talk here about good intentions but there is no detailed, written plan regarding the trees. Perhaps that would be a good thing to seek. Otherwise a lot of this is just speculation and concern without adequate information to resolve anything.

The staff report on the district's website outlines the district's intention for every large tree on the property. It describes the arborists' concerns about safety of that tree.

we rode over and looked at it this afternoon.
looks healthy as ever, but curiously, no sign of core drill anywhere on the trunk like you would expect from a resistograph probe. No point of entry unless they went above 10 feet. Makes one wonder.
Root crown excavation from last year is still there, and that crew from the tree removal guy said it was healthy then. Go take a look yourself and let us know