<p>"A decision by the University of Michigan to spend $400,000 to relocate a centuries-old oak tree in the way of a planned business school expansion has critics on campus and at arch-rival Ohio State stumped." ...</p>
<p>Oh Dave, you raise such controversial and mind blowing topics. You maverick.</p>
<p>/s</p>
<p>It was paid for by private donations that were earmarked for the expansion and renovation of the business school. The tree needed to be moved because of the construction plans for the business school, and it will very likely survive the move in a perfectly good new location. No loss for anyone, and no reason for controversy.</p>
<p>“It was paid for by private donations that were earmarked for the expansion and renovation of the business school.”
That’s kind of the point. The 400k could be used for productive purposes in the expansion, instead of something pointless like moving a tree. This is beyond stupid, but par for course for typical decision makers in the public sector.</p>
<p>It may be required by the City. In Ann Arbor, you cannot cut a tree for construction without the city approval. It is very stringent even for a small tree. I am sure the school would not want to spend that money if not necessary. We have dealed with the City for the same issue for years. So the school has to decide to leave the tree there and construct the building around it, or move the tree and fully utilize the land. In the past, the city allowed tree replacement (i.e. plant certain number of trees if cut a tree of certain size). They have changed the policy and make it really hard these days, particularly, for the construction that would not increase the tax revenue for the city.</p>
<p>This is really a non-issue. </p>
<p>But, of course, it’s Fox “News” so it has to be spun in some way. </p>
<p>“This is beyond stupid, but par for course for typical decision makers in the public sector.”</p>
<p>Of course private universities would never do anything that is so wasteful of resources.</p>
<p>Compare to the money they paid for that small convenient store in order to build the Life Science Institute Building, this is a small amount of money to gain the use of a similar size of land in the middle of a plot.</p>
<p>
Moving the tree is necessary for the expansion, but why include facts when they’re inconvenient for you?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think he’s saying that it costs much less just to cut it down and not move it.</p>
<p>^ Obviously cutting the tree is not the option. See reason above.</p>
<p>This tree is centuries old and its lifespan is 200-300 years, sometimes making it to 400 years of age. I would think that cutting it down and using the wood in the new building in some unique way would be a better use of donor monies.</p>
<p>^ This reminds me of what AA did with the Traverwood Library branch back in 2007, where some of the cut-down ash trees were integrated as part of the internal decor. Uniquely beautiful & quite an organic structure! Nice view appreciated by many of the library patrons. Definitely better use of the trees & money!</p>