CVS' recycling and the truth about trees.

As I was headed to Parnell's shop for a haircut this morning, I passed the site of the new, St.Marys CVS Pharmacy. I noticed that the site prep company they hired is recycling all of the old concrete on site. For those who don't know, that huge pile of crushed concrete is what is known in the construction business as "crush-crete." It is very useful. If they don't re-use it on site as underlayment for the asphalt paving, they will sell it to a rock and gravel yard. When you mix in a little fresh cement, you can then spread it on the ground. When it rains, it hardens into a perfectly serviceable surface for rural private roads and driveways. I've delivered and spread many a ton of it myself. I also notice that they are balling up the rebar to recycle. It will end up in a recycling steel mill smelter (like the one in Georgetown, SC) and become new steel wire. This kind of recycling is not always done. My guess is that CVS specified that they use this more expensive approach. Will CVS get credit for being a good corporate citizen from the Green eco-weenies? Of course not. They will pooh-pooh this just as they have pooh-poohed the check for $6,000 which CVS immediately wrote to the city of St. Marys when asked to as mitigation for the oak trees that had to be removed to make the project economically viable. So, what is the truth about our urban forest? Here's a project for you. The next time you're out driving around St. Marys - especially downtown - every time you see a live oak tree, ask yourself this question: Based upon the size and location of the tree relative to roads and structure, was it more likely, A, here when Columbus landed; B, planted by a forgetful squirrel; or C, planted by a man or woman with the sure and certain knowledge that they would never live to see it grow to its current size? Perhaps the contemporary, exhibitionistic, vocal, Green eco-weenies would do better to stop putting on narcissistic exhibitions of holier-than-thou liberal orthodoxy in the editorial sections and at city council meetings and take a few lessons from the folks who selflessly planted those trees long ago. But no, they are now set upon a course of having the city's live oaks (for starters) designated "heritage trees." Sounds pretty benign, eh? It's not. Google it and read a few of the ordinances from around the country. Private property rights? Forget about it! Here are a few thoughts on ADDING more trees to the urban forest. For openers, let's take that $6,000 from CVS and fence in about 1/10th of an acre of the "community garden" over by the airport. Inside of that fence, in 5 gallon buckets, the seniors from the senior citizens center could, and would no doubt love to, plant and tend to seedlings of different ornamental species grown from the free seeds of existing prime specimens throughout the city. Clearly, the oaks in the median in front of city hall would be a good source for acorns. Crape myrtles will grow from seed. I'm sure local citizens would be happy to donate seeds from their crape myrtles. Right now is the ideal time to harvest them, by the way. I have a couple of unusual "dynamite" crape myrtles on my lawn. What seeds I've not already given away, they're welcome to. I'm sure folks can think of many more plant species that can be propagated. I'm certain that when they get large enough to be transplanted onto city properties in dire need of some beautification, there would be younger, able bodied volunteers available for the task. If it works on a small scale at first, for city use only, then perhaps it can be expanded to an annual plant give away to citizens. I would suggest that this approach beats the hell out of efforts to deprive people of their property rights for the sake of trees.