Mojo on Tree-Gate
.
We axed Counselor Mojo how he would mediate the John Olerud Tree-Gate Scandal - not just in terms of the letter of the law, but in terms of what's fair and what's Do Unto Others. His brilliant analysis runs,
........
... I hadn't known anything about the situation other than the headline. Had figured that Olerud and the other homeowner had sharp words, and then the other guy ran off to the media to create a sensation. If it developed out of Olerud himself trying to bring leverage to bear, then ... yowch.
Olerud sued for removal of the tree? Didn't his attorney tell him how groundless that would be... ah well. No use blowing off a retainer :- ) I guess a followup question to Mojo would be, what theoretical basis could there be for this suit?
.................
Going around casting accusations because the homeowner preferred not to remove his own tree is also damaging to Olerud's influence, no doubt. If those two things be true then it's weirdly dissonant against what we all thought of Olerud. It's a violation of true spirituality to use laws, creeds, sacred writings, etc. as a club to leverage others into acting to your advantage. To use "Do Unto Others" cynically as a leverage bar is itself a gross violation of "Do Unto Others." There's hardly anything that's more damaging to the faithful, as it were, than to have other "faithful" manipulating them through the system.
................
This is America. It's your yard, your tree, and not our place to tell you what to do with your yard. A big part of legal process is to weigh the rights of society against the rights of the individual. Supposing it were a Homeowners' Association, much less one neighbor, telling a guy to cut down his own tree, 'cause we don't like it, isn't anywhere near a gray area, in my view.
Not a proud moment for Olerud, agreed. Ah well. The powers that be will tell him where to get off, and we the public will suddenly realize that he's not a 2-D cartoon cutout of a perfect human being, and that will be an appropriate consequence to fit the circumstance.
.
Olerud has a few things working against him in the tree dispute:
1. The tree was there when he built the house. Whatever arrangements he made for his view should have been made before he built the house or bought the lot.
2. Trees, though common, are priceless. If you chop one down that you particularly like, you will never get another one exactly like it. You are dealing with a unique creature; A man can chop down a tree but only God can create one.
3. By account this tree was particularly rare. The article says it was a Chinese Pine and that it was old.
4. Further, a pine tree is particularly inoffensive. It doesn't pollute the neighbor's yard with leaves or seedlings or poop, it doesn't yap like a dog, it doesn't run along the ground and sprout in wierd areas like a Red Aldar or a bamboo, it doesn't eat the neighbor's wild birds from their bird feeder, like a cat, it doesn't abut any property line so that it is intrusive, the roots are not breaking or unsettling any concrete or foundation, it is not dangerous to little children, it does not carry any loathsome disease, and it does not grow at an alarming rate. Further, the objection to the tree is purely aesthetic, rather than causing any real economic harm. The tree is not costing Olerud his livelihood.
These factors combine to create a situation that money cannot fix. It is impossible for Olerud to pay for repairs, to make both parties happy. So, while this tree might be a small thing to some owners, who could then come to a reasonable agreement for its removal, if an owner likes the tree for its individuality, then an agreement will be unreachable.
I don't view this as a small or minor situation blown up by the media. To want the tree removed is one thing, but to sue for its removal is quite another. There are many things that people desire that they should not sue over. Further, Olerud does damage to the Christian faith by telling the zoning board that his neighbor is not a good Christian because he does not cut down the tree as asked. The Bible states that Christians should have the Church arbitrate disputes between them so as not to bring the faith into discredit. 1 Cor. 6:7. Olerud, whether he likes it or not, is a particularly influental person, so when he says these things, it reaches a larger audience than he probably intended. He should leave his private obsessions out of the public eye.