Is it me, or is truly ironic that people who make their living off dead trees go out of their way to defend trees’ right to life? Must be some sort of guilt complex working there.

At any rate, the Journal’s lead story has not one but two reporters on —– gasp—- topping of trees at North Summit shopping center.

North Summit property manager Spence Wright explained himself:

Wright said last week that cutting the trees back wasn’t done to increase visibility but because many of the trees had outgrown the curbed areas where they were planted, had dead or dying limbs, or had shown signs of distress over the summer. A contractor was hired to top the trees.

Wright also said that GFD has budgeted money to replace trees if it needs to.

“We were trying to do the right thing and enhance the property,” Wright said. “It wasn’t our intention to make things worse. We’ve always maintained an “A” class property, and we plan to continue to do so.”

There you have it. The owners were simply maintaining their property for the benefit of its tenants and its customers. If the decision to prune the trees proves to be wrong (which I don’t think it will be because trees are more resiliant than we think), they’ll replace them at their expense.

But reading the article, you’d think some horrible crime has been committed that will require —– you guessed it— greater government oversight.

Question for the guys down at the Journal: Nothing better to write about today?

Bonus observation: I’ve been keeping an eye on the conversation over at Cone’s regarding the supposed lack of impartiality on the part of the Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change, of which the John Locke Foundation is a member.

I believe it is indeed an impartial statement to say there is sense of alarmism among pro-environmental groups and the media. Look, I’m not saying the above Journal story isn’t news. But doesn’t its placement, along with the allocation of manpower in a stretched-thin newsroom, indicate that sense of alarmism?