.jpg)
.jpg)
|
Home
News
2012
September Headlines
|
Redlands Adventist Church Embroiled in Local Environmental Controversy
Submitted: Sep 17, 2012
By AT News Team
Updated September 27How difficult community involvement can be for a congregation is illustrated in the local conflict that the Redlands Seventh-day Adventist Church has become embroiled in. The church had two trees removed near the edge of property where a new annex is being constructed, redwoods that belong to the municipal government and are over 80 years old, according to the Redlands Daily Facts.
City officials responded very negatively when they found out about it. On September 6 a special meeting at city hall was convened to discuss the situation. It included “city manager N. Enrique Martinez, Quality of Life director Fred Cardenas, city attorney Dan McHugh, director of community development Oscar Orci, the city’s parks and field coordinator Erik Reeves, city code enforcement officer Robert Montaghami and public information officer Carl Baker,” the newspaper reported. A week later at a community forum Martinez was questioned by “passionate” residents as to what the city planned to do about it.
“I take it very, very seriously,” the city manager told the newspaper. “I can’t speak for the City Council, but the City Council has gone record since I’ve been here about how important the urban forest is to the city. It’s not just important for oxygen, but for economic development and beauty.” Cardenas said “quite a few ordinances were violated.” The newspaper reported that the replacement cost of the trees is estimated to be $27,000.
Pastor Zach Thorp has taken responsibility for the removal of the trees without getting permission from the municipality. “He said … the trees posed a safety hazard to traffic, because branches blocked the stop sign; pedestrians, because drivers could not see people waiting to cross [the street]; and churchgoers and passersby, because the tree was dying and, especially during and after storms, limbs could fall,” according to the newspaper.
The pastor is quoted, “We certainly value the trees in Redlands, and we’re wanting to put five large trees in there to landscape that boulevard, and give them adequate water so they can (be healthy), obviously at our cost. We’ll maintain the trees on a regular basis.” Evidently the plan violates a city code that requires 40 feet between trees, which means there is only room for two trees in the space in question.
The city government is deciding whether or not to pursue criminal or civil penalties, according to the newspaper. The next City Council session is scheduled for September 18 and Martinez has indicated that a full report will be made on the issue.
The pastor “has been cooperatives by all accounts, and stressed that he never meant to hurt anyone,” the newspaper reported. It quoted his apology, “we’re sorrowful for any sorrow that it’s caused anyone. We obviously want to be great neighbors.” The newspaper did not report on any neighbors who support the removal of the trees, although history indicates that there likely are some, perhaps even a majority.
Update
At a meeting of the city council on September 18, the pastor apologized to the neighbors and municipal representatives for the removal of the trees and assured them that the church would replace the trees. Sources have told Adventist Today that the company that did the removal failed to alert the pastor to the restrictions involved.
Sources familiar with the congregation and the town told Adventist Today that the Redlands Church is known to be a community church. Out of the 244 active members, 146 or nearly 60 percent live in the City of Redlands. This is a very different situation than most Adventist churches as shown in national surveys. In most Adventist congregations, the majority of the members do not live in the community where the church building is located.
In fact, the purpose of the current construction project is to create space for meeting community needs as well as for church activities, a source told Adventist Today. A large part of the new building is dedicated to rooms for the community to utilize for concerts, programs and social events.
________________________
Share your thoughts about this article:
Log In to Post a Comment. Log In | Register
They were on city property, and if they were traffic hazards, it should have been taken up with the city before taking such action.
Years ago when Fresno was building a new academy on a lovely old home site with many sycamore trees, someone started a fire in efforts to control overgrwon weeds, resulting in destroying many beautiful trees that took years to replace and give shade. California treasures its trees because they do not just "naturally" sprout and grow like in many areas.
Clearly they should have explored this better before taking action.
As embarrassing as it was, many years ago our church board had a "fight" over whether or not to cut some trees down on church property (mostly birches and aspen). It was basically a "city landscape" mentality vs. those of us who lived in the woods. The country bumkins prevailed. :-) Vive la forêt!
I know that the pastor personally went door to door in the neighborhood to apologize for any distress it had caused and to assure the neighbors that the Church really wants to be a good neighbor. Some neighbors were very angry. Others were very cordial, and thanked him for cutting down the trees.
I am puzzled and annoyed that the last paragraph was included in the story. There is no evidence that Redlands church members do not live in the neighborhood. My daughter and son-in-law attend there, and they are certainly in the neighborhood. I think the vast majority of Redlands church members live in the local community. The writer of this story is just making up an issue to evoke an "Ugly American" image of Adventist churches in general, and the Redlands Church in particular, as insensitive to the local community.
Did the writer bother to call Pastor Thorp to find out what percentage of his congregation lived in the local community? No. Of course not! That might have spoiled the frame that the writer used to create a sulphuric context for the story. Even if the members did live outside the local area, so what? Please cite the survey that is referenced. Give us a reference for the "many cases" where members not living in the local community makes the church out of touch with local needs and attitudes. Tell us about the embarrassing conflicts. My suspicion is that the writer is just making up a lot of his material in the last paragraph.
The story is interesting and newsworthy, but the journalism is highly irresponsible. I think a retraction of that last paragraph, and an apology by the "AT News Team" is definitely called for.
Puzzling that the bylines are so generic....most reporters and readers desire specifics.
Also unsure what " but the City Council has gone record ..." means.
Secondly, if this was my neighbor, who in good faith, cut down a tree on my property, thinking it was on his property, he would be liable to compensate me for the damages, and that would be it. It would not be a matter of political high moral dudgeon. Unfortunately politicians, whether they are local or national, love to jump on a moral high horse and make political hay whenever they can. I suspect there are many much more important issues that Redlands City officials should be addressing. But this apparently strikes them as low hanging fruit. So they seem to be making a much bigger deal out of it than is warranted. Thus, the story takes on a life of its own, quite independent of the provocation.
Why is it so difficult to simply say, "Here's the bill, folks," and move on?
God desires spiritual fruit, not religious nuts.
I'd suggest calling people lunatics, wackos, is on the level as obtuse as a pastor cutting down TWO city trees -GASP, R E D W O O D S even, in the land of the tree-huggers. The hubris here in comments, and in the tree cutting-and the lame rationale...well, perhaps not unsurprising when we strive less towards being fruit and more towards being "right".
Perhaps, Jean, it is as damning to God to have people who claim his name (and common sense, as well arrogate religious license) give not a whit of decent respect to another human being, just as you decry that tree-hugger respects non-human life more than human.
Join me for a barby tonight; spotted owl and scrub jay on the menu, roasted on some endangered conifer slab, and lets celebrate our domination of nature! God gave dominion; and we abdicated, then bulldozed the garden-and co-habitants. But surely you and i can have a good time, hatin' those nature-lovin' brethren!
Requiring a permit to remove a large tree is certainly not unique to Southern California. I live in New Jersey which has a lot of trees (compared to So Calif). Even most urban areas have many trees. My city requires a permit by the "Shade Tree Commission" to remove any tree above a certain trunk diameter. Reasons are both environmental and esthetic - the character of the neighborhood.
A few years ago a local owner of a large, 10+ acre, heavily forested, estate removed over a dozen large trees in order to straighten his driveway and was fined many thousands of dollars and required to replace them with mature trees.
I love our trees and if this makes me a "nut", I am proud of it. I happily rake (never blow) the leaves every fall and appreciate the cooling effect of their shade on my house. I may live in a "shady area" but want to preserve its character.
California, as I'm sure other states, must constantly trim trees that obstruct overhead power lines as well as traffic signs. I have a large black walnut tree on my property, probably at least 150 years old according to long-time residents in this area. It has been drastically trimmed back over the years because of obstruction of power lines.
Many medians are planted with redwood trees, and I have a number on my rural property. Several counties in the central valley have done a better job of protecting the live oaks that provide such beauty and shade and there are many laws preventing the cutting of trees, thank God!