This is what I have learned from the recent timber lawsuit.

I learned that some people and their offspring are entitled to hold the same job forever, no matter how times change.

I learned that once a value is assigned to an entity, such as trees, that value cannot be changed, no matter how much circumstances change.

I learned that one can't change the meaning of "value," even if other, maybe higher-level values are realized.

I learned that terms and conditions set forth 80 years ago are unchangeable, no mater what the circumstances. (Therefore, House Bill 2001, which proposes to add apartments to my single-family-residence neighborhood, ought to be null and void, since I and my neighbors signed sales contracts to live in single-family neighborhoods.)

I saw from the timber suit that only one dollar value was assigned to anything, that being the value of timber cut and sold. Where was the comparison to other values? What is the dollar value of carbon sequestration by trees or the water protection afforded by forest stands? The suit compared apples to nothing. That is an irresponsible and shortsighted way to examine evidence.

I saw that the entire trial seemed to ignore the reality of the climate emergency. The current environmental conditions demand that we become comfortable with change, yet this lawsuit seemed to advocate for staying where we have been for 80 years.

Therese Waterhous


Register for more free articles
Stay logged in to skip the surveys