Is Betts biased against living landmarks?

From the NY Times:

...every so often the commission receives an unusual request. Some have sought, for example, an evaluation of a cheerless little spot underneath a bridge, or a seemingly unremarkable house in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, which happened to be the childhood home of the television host Larry King. The commission has also been asked to review manhole covers, an aging brick wall, and a wooded grove in Kissena Park in Queens. None of these proposals were accepted.

“Trees die, unfortunately,” said Mary Beth Betts, the director of research for the commission.

That's an interesting reason for denying landmarking to Kissena Grove, considering there is currently a landmarked tree in Brooklyn and there also was the Weeping Beech tree in Flushing, which was likewise landmarked.  It did die, but its descendants have filled the void nicely.

A fellow preservationist put it this way: "Trees die, unfortunately? That's why there are several trees that are landmarked, and there are entire historic districts where trees CANNOT BE REMOVED because they're in an historic district (Douglas Manor/Fieldston/Riverdale/Stapleton).

It's not only the trees of Kissena Park that are important, it's that they are possibly the only remnant of a former commercial nursery from the most prominent family in Flushing that is still in existence ANYWHERE in NYC."

Buildings may burn down, too; maybe we shouldn't landmark those, either?


Photo from Bridge and Tunnel Club