Treedom Of Speech

My council sent me a letter. Its contents are in italics:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Good solid start. I feel we’re on firm footing here.

Trees are a living and changing resource that require management to ensure they continue to be an asset to our community.

Already shaky. “Living and changing resource.” I’m fairly sure you’re writing to me to tell me about one of these “changes“. Say, changing from living to not living. Ah, but wait. Why be plain about it, when you have the chance to use the next line.

A Coral Tree recently failed at the cul-de-sac adjacent to the Cooks River.

Failed? A tree failed? It failed to be a tree? It’s now a sixth grader in a school play?

Coral Trees are recognised as a high risk species - I’d dearly love to leave that sentence there, but I should be fair - as they are particularly susceptible to decay and collapse.

As is the English language in the hands of middle management, council types.

We inspected the remaining Coral Trees at the cul-de-sac and have concerns with the stability of the cluster of three Coral Trees adjacent to the tree that failed.

Huddling. Weeping. Throwing their branches up and wondering “Why? Why him? He was the best of all of us. He was just too beautiful for this world.” But the prize for self-importance this week goes to “stability of the cluster of Coral Trees adjacent to the tree that failed".

We therefore have programmed the removal of these three Coral Trees and we have marked them for easy identification.

Why? So we can go and tease them and make them even more unstable? And what’s this programmed business? A bit highfaluting for a guy with a chainsaw isn’t it?

I will now rewrite your bullshit letter, Parks and Property Coordinator for the City of Canterbury.

Dear Resident,

There’s a dead coral tree out the back of your place. We’re going to cut it down and take it away. Just to be on the safe side we’re going to do the ones around it, as well. They don’t look the best.

Let us know if that’s not ok.

Cheers,
Park Guy.