Cutting to the chase, somebody ponied up 1 Million Orange Blossoms and FONA is working to develop a trust fund that equals that to support the azalea, boxwood and perennial collections.
All's well that ends well, Eh? Well, no. Why did we have to go down this road? Is funding of National treasures going to be a bidding war? Is the Grand Canyon going to be held hostage? 'Unless you buy this magazine, We'll shoot this dog' (National Lampoon)
Let's face it- I've been mostly a publicist of this issue, trying to bring wider awareness to a politically active community. I'm glad to see that the azaleas are spared. But the question remains- 'Why was this exercise even necessary?'
A renowned garden, in a National Arboretum, that draws over 100,000 visitors during the flowering, established by one of the founders of the Arboretum, and containing the best of the research to develop hardy azaleas is threatened with destruction. Why?
The best answer I can come up with is institutional, bureaucratic and personal blindness. Bear in mind that the Arb was leaderless/transitional for the period during the formulation of this decision.
So the letter from Scott Aker in which he says,
We have indeed been forced to plan the removal of most of the azaleas on the Glenn Dale Hillside. While we have only had slight reductions in financial resources for the past ten years, our costs have gone up steadily, and our staff numbers have steadily eroded to the point where we cannot sustain all of our collections.
Now, mind you- he follows that by saying,
This is not being driven by the need to use the land for other purposes; it is rather driven by the need to reduce the total labor needed to maintain our collections in an acceptable manner.
As for clueless- the following should suffice,
Currently, again in part to diminishing resources, we are now unable to accommodate the crowds of visitors in April and May when the azaleas are in bloom. We have inadequate parking and restroom facilities. It is becoming progressively more difficult to ensure a positive and safe visitor experience during this time frame, and some shifting of priorities in the Azalea Collection are needed to address this.
So, there is no scientific need for the reduction of the collection, he would keep it if he had manpower. He's concerned for the visitors.
Which makes the following sentence, discordant;
We plan to incorporate a greater diversity of azaleas, most notably late blooming native species and cultivars derived from them, as well as Kurume and Satsuki azaleas that bloom later
.
So, using manpower resources the Arb doesn't have to plant new azaleas, he wants to extend the crush of visitors to more months.
So- here's Don Hyatt on the Azelea Digest:
At the time Dr. Jordan wrote that reply, I doubt that he was aware of the million dollar donation to the Arboretum. Last night I spoke with Jeanne Connelly, FONA's Chair, and she assured me that the gift is an endowment strictly for use by the Azalea and Boxwood Collections. It cannot funneled into other projects like the Asian Valley or the new Chinese Garden. Jordan says that he cannot justify the use of public funds for maintenance of the "undocumented" azaleas, even though he admits they create the most popular floral display at the Arboretum. The difference is that this is private money and I doubt that anyone would characterize it as "limited funds."
As for Dr. Jordan's insistence that regardless of funding issue they still plan to remove the azaleas, I don't believe it. The decision has already been the "PR nightmare" Aaron Cook promised. People from all over have rallied behind our cause to Save the Azaleas. Of course, that decision was Scott Aker's plan and Dr. Jordan eventually backed it. In the Hearst TV interview, Jordan said that he rejected the idea several times before reluctantly agreeing to it. I think he is still trying to save face. Nobody expected the incredible outpouring of support from the general public, though, so I can't imagine the two of them following through on their plans.
What we need to do now is mantian(sic) the momentum, reaching out to the many supporters of the azalea and boxwood collections to see if we can increase the size of that endowment. A million dollars seems like a huge amount, but remember that the principal itself cannot be touched, only the interest. That means it will only generate perhaps $40,000 to $50,000 per year at the moment which is not self-sustaining. The Arboretum will likely get be facing other budget cuts, too. If we could double the principle we could have a fund that would likely preserve those collections in perpetuity. It is really ironic that the plants deemed "expendable" by Aker and Jordan will probably end up being the most protected collections in the entire Arboretum.
As for me, I am feeling very positive about the situation. I would be even happier if Scott Aker and Dr. Jordan could find some quiet retreat, far away from the National Arboretum, where they can reflect upon their collected wisdom. Hey... where is Mubarak hiding right now? ;-)
Don Hyatt
McLean, VA
The inquiry that prompted Don's response was from Canadians, facing a similar government inanity.
This is a long enough post that I despair of anyone reading it. Vote in the poll below to let me know what you think. And as always, if I don't post and you are 'Curious- Azalea' go to Save the Azaleas