Comments
URBAN FORESTS - Los Angeles doesn't have a tree problem. It has an accountability problem.
Every summer reminds Angelenos why a healthy urban forest matters. Trees cool neighborhoods, improve air quality, reduce energy costs, absorb stormwater, and make our communities healthier and more livable. Yet while residents wait for dead trees to be removed, empty tree wells remain vacant, and maintenance requests linger for months, City Hall continues to rely on a familiar solution: another meeting.
The Community Forest Advisory Committee was created with an important mission to advise the City on protecting and expanding Los Angeles' urban forest. No one questions the value of that mission. The real question taxpayers should ask is much simpler: Has the current system produced the results Los Angeles deserves?
The committee serves in an advisory capacity. It can discuss issues, review policies, and make recommendations. However, it cannot direct City departments, approve budgets, assign work crews, or require that its recommendations be implemented.
Advice has value. Results are indispensable.
That distinction matters because residents do not judge government by the number of meetings it holds. They judge government by whether problems are actually solved. When a hazardous tree threatens a neighborhood, when a family waits months for maintenance, or when entire communities continue to lack adequate tree canopy, residents are not asking whether another recommendation has been drafted. They are asking why the work has not been completed.
Unfortunately, this reflects a broader pattern that has become all too familiar at City Hall. Faced with nearly every public challenge homelessness, public safety, infrastructure, permitting, transportation, or environmental policy, the City's first instinct is often to create another advisory group, commission another report, or schedule another public meeting.
Process has become a substitute for performance.
Los Angeles already understands the importance of expanding its tree canopy. City leaders know the environmental, economic, and public health benefits that trees provide. There is no shortage of studies, strategic plans, or policy recommendations explaining what needs to be done.
What has been missing is consistent execution.
Every advisory body should periodically answer a few straightforward questions. Which recommendations have been adopted? What measurable improvements resulted from those recommendations? How has the public benefited? What performance metrics demonstrate success?
These are not political questions. They are management questions.
Taxpayers deserve clear answers because every hour devoted to government meetings represents public time and public resources invested in achieving measurable outcomes. Every advisory committee should be able to demonstrate its value through tangible accomplishments, not simply by the number of meetings it conducts.
Good intentions alone cannot cool neighborhoods. PowerPoint presentations cannot reduce urban heat. Committee agendas cannot replace dead trees.
Only implementation can accomplish those goals.
This is not an argument against citizen participation. Volunteers who dedicate their time to improving Los Angeles deserve appreciation and respect. Public participation remains an essential part of good government.
But participation should support action not become a substitute for it.
Los Angeles needs a culture of government that rewards execution as much as planning. That means faster maintenance, more tree planting, better coordination between departments, transparent performance metrics, regular public reporting, and clear accountability when promised improvements fail to materialize.
Government earns public confidence one completed project at a time not one committee meeting at a time.
The urban forest is too important to become trapped in an endless cycle of studies, recommendations, and deferred action. Residents are not asking for more discussion. They are asking for shade on their streets, safe sidewalks, healthy trees, timely maintenance, and visible progress.
Los Angeles does not need another meeting to understand what needs to be done.
It needs the leadership to do it.
Because, in the end, committees don't plant trees.
People do.
And taxpayers deserve a government that spends less time talking about results and more time delivering them.
(Avrohom Moshe is a California-based civic affairs writer and public policy analyst focused on government accountability, fiscal responsibility, and public safety. He also writes on issues affecting the Jewish community, including combating antisemitism and advancing civic engagement.)
