Pasadena Chamber of Commerce

A former president of Pasadena Beautiful, flanked by a dozen or so supporters, called passionately for a boycott of one of Pasadena’s iconic retailers at public comment during last night’s Pasadena City Council meeting. Why try to put one of Pasadena’s mainstays out of business? Because the store supported the fifteen year-old Playhouse District streetscape plan that calls for, among other things, cutting down 30 or so ficus and carrotwood trees and replacing them with twice as many palms and ginkos.

Regardless of the reason, is it really in our community’s best interest to thwart the economic vitality of any member of our local business community over an issue such as this? And this isn’t the only instance. It’s rumored that a local children’s institution has urged it’s friends to boycott a local business district over perceived lack of support for an annual event.

Who loses in all this? If Pasadena Beautiful, an organization that relies on donations from local people for its survival, loses support from local businesses because those businesses are offended by the stridency of a former PB president  is that justified? If advertisers in the local newspapers choose another venue for their ad dollars because their local editor is fomenting anger over Playhouse District tree removals, who is the real loser?

Actually, without Pasadena Beautiful, Kidspace Museum, Vromans and the Star-News, we all lose. Not just because the local store, children’s service and newspaper have to cope with even more difficult economic realities, but because people in Pasadena can’t agree to maintain a civil, respectful and appropriate level of discourse.

There will always be competing interests on any issue, but the discourse needs to remain on a level that requires respect (and prudence).

Where is the voice that reminds the Pasadena Beautiful president emirita that she can have more of an impact on climate change by not running her air conditioning in the summer than those 30 trees could manage? Where is the voice reminding the newspaper editor that the institution that writes his paycheck kills more than 30 trees every day. (AND it makes no difference if the trees are grown specifically for that purpose or not, they still die to publish the newspaper.)

In Pasadena, trees are an emotional issue, but so is the continued vitality of a local retail institution that has survived in the face of tremendous pressure from the changing marketplace. Remember, this is an institution that has been vital to the growth, development and identity of Pasadena — AND it is owned by a family that has been integral to the growth and development of Pasadena as a city we all cherish.

How many give-back dollars have gone to support Pasadena Beautiful, I wonder? How many book fueled ad dollars have found their way into reporters’ and editors’ pockets through payroll checks?

Calling for a boycott in this instance is a shame, pure and simple. Those who would advocate doing so should think long and hard about their priorities — and consider the long-term effects and implications of what they are suggesting.

In the end, we are talking about a couple of dozen trees here. Nobody dies.

Paul