I just can’t stop laughing at this. The tree you’re looking at is actually the city of Concord’s official Christmas tree.
I know times are tough right now but is California suffering a shortage of decent trees too? This is pathetic. Who’s their mayor, Charlie Brown?
News10 reports:
Oh Christmas tree, how puny are your branches.
That’s been many people’s first reaction to the lopsided brownish tree decorated by the city of Concord this year.
Officials said budget cuts forced them to forgo a freshly cut, full-bodied tree for one growing in a city plaza. They said the tree is saving the city about $20,000 and is more eco-friendly than a cut one.
While some onlookers described it as pathetic, scraggly and a sad reflection of the bare economy, it is finding supporters.
Officials called it their Charlie Brown tree, named after the one picked out by the Peanuts character who also was mocked for his choice. Officials said that tree reminded the characters of the spirit of the season, and hope the Concord one does too.
I love that they’re embracing the Charlie Brown mythos to make themselves feel better. Blockheads!
December 11, 2009 at 3:11 am
I just want to know how a you can be saving $20,000 by choosing any tree over another. Maybe I need to get into the business of selling $20,000 Christmas trees to cities. Hmm….
December 11, 2009 at 3:27 am
I believe that this particular tree is actually already growing in the square, Anony, they just put lights on it. Plus it is Caly, maybe they shipped it in from another state.
I mean, yes it's green, and yes, it saves money. But that it is one butt-ugly tree. Man I needed a laugh. It's been a real tough news Christmas.
December 11, 2009 at 4:52 am
Given that this is a municipal government in California, where the state is for all practical purposes bankrupt, and local governments severely limited in their ability to raise revenues (ever since Proposition 13), no budget cutback is too small or insignificant to make, especially when they want to make a good impression on the taxpayers!
Elaine
December 11, 2009 at 11:41 am
Re: William,
Then maybe it's not such a bad tree afterall. 😉
December 11, 2009 at 2:33 pm
That's not a Christmas tree; it's a holiday tree.
December 11, 2009 at 2:39 pm
I'm just suprised they're having one at all.
Dean
December 11, 2009 at 5:31 pm
I guess I am the only one (so far) that can see beauty in that tree. In 1976 our Christmas tree was some sort of branch cut off from a tree my adult cousins found in the woods. My family was so broke, we thought we had been to grocery heaven when we managed to get food stamps. So a scraggly tree with a few ornaments can mean a whole lot to some people, it doesn't have to look like something trying to be the tree in Rockefeller Center. As a spiritual exercise, celebrate your Christmas this year using $30.00 and your imagination. That's for gifts, food, etc., everything. That's what we had, and it was just as lovely as Christmas in years before that. It doesn't have to be expensive to be wonderful, you know.
December 11, 2009 at 7:15 pm
I like it! I have a soft spot for Charlie Brown trees …
December 11, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Fifteen minutes can save you $20,000 on Christmas trees.
December 11, 2009 at 9:58 pm
I agree with Tewkes and Genevieve.
This tree shows more Chirstmas spirit than the one in Rockefeller Center ever will. Let's not forget that Jesus Christ was born in a manger.
December 14, 2009 at 3:59 pm
I like it, too. It's not THAT ugly, and it saved the city $20,000 not to mention they didn't have to kill a tree. They used their God-given resources. I think that's nice.
I also think it's nice that they didn't use the broke excuse to skip the tree altogether, as a lot of places in this country no doubt would have done.