City of Trees, City of Fools

Once upon a time, someone started the rumor that Sacramento was the “City of Trees.” I am not sure who is responsible for this very local urban legend. A longtime environmental activist friend of mine once told me that the Sacramento Tree Foundation is responsible for manufacturing this enchanting bit of local boosterism.

Now, I am a big fan of trees. And I appreciate the work of the Sacramento Tree Foundation. But it’s a little disturbing to see how readily the locals have lapped up their own propaganda Kool-Aid when it comes to trees. Somewhere along the line, the “City of Trees” monicker went from slogan to fiercely held local belief. Someone claimed that the city had “more trees per capita” than any other city besides Paris. And for as long as I have lived here, I have heard that claim repeated at various times by people attempting to extol the beauty of our city. The media also picked up on the idea-- check out these pieces by NPR/KQED and the august New York Times repeating the claim.

I can claim no firsthand knowledge of the relative densities of urban forests or the number of “trees per capita” of any particular metropolitan region-- particularly those in France. But as someone who has traveled a bit beyond the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Valleys, I confidently offer this observation: Sacramento is definitively NOT the “City of Trees.” And the idea that we have more “trees per capita” than any other city this side of the Atlantic is pure fantasy.

I grew up in Indiana, and I went to school on the Gulf Coast. I have seen a fair bit of the South and the Midwest east of the Mississippi. In either of those regions, any two-bit town with a little undeveloped land could easily claim a higher density of trees, and a higher ratio of “trees per capita,” than our fair city. Most of those areas of the country were either forest or swamp. Consequently, you don’t have to think about planting trees. Any piece of land, left to its own devices, will spontaneously sprout a variety of second-growth species of tree. The roads and drainage ditches are lined with thick underbrush and canopy-producing forest. In most cases, I doubt that much thought went into the cultivation of these trees. But there they are, nonetheless-- a product of a wet climate and a legacy of a woodland ecology that humans have not quite managed to subdue.

I notice that the Sacramento Tree Foundation continues to perpetuate a slightly more modest version of the Forested Sacramento Myth. They claim here that it is the “beauty of Sacramento’s tree canopy” that is second only to Paris. In my not-so-humble opinion, this claim is no less laughable than the claim that our sprawling metropolis is among the most tree-dense cities in the world.

Does it seem as though I am more irked by the “City of Trees” myth than I should be? Perhaps. In my opinion, it is just another indicator of this city’s fantastic inferiority complex and its desperate and pathetic attempt to fashion an identity for itself. City leaders and city residents cling to the strangest things in hopes of proving that Sacramento is a unique and interesting place to live-- whether it be gentle white lies about our urban forest, or less innocent lies about the importance of professional basketball to Sacramento’s civic life. At least the lies about trees are relatively inexpensive.