Every now and then, something crosses our desk that reminds us why editorial standards exist.

We received a submission — if you can call it that — consisting of little more than someone's personal feelings about a Douglas Fir tree. That's it. No policy angle. No fiscal implications. No story.

Look, we love trees. San Francisco's urban canopy is genuinely worth caring about, especially when you look at how the city manages (or mismanages) its $60 million parks budget. There's a real conversation to be had about how Recreation and Parks allocates resources for tree maintenance, or why the Department of Public Works took years to sort out responsibility for street trees before finally shifting sidewalk tree maintenance back to the city in 2021 — a move that came with a dedicated funding stream voters approved.

But "my favorite Douglas Fir" isn't that conversation.

We bring this up not to mock anyone's arboreal affections but to make a broader point: in a city drowning in sentimental gestures and short on substantive accountability, we owe it to readers to stay focused on what matters. San Francisco faces a housing crisis, a transit system held together with duct tape and hope, and a budget that would make a drunken sailor blush. Every column inch we spend on feelings is one we're not spending on facts.

So if you've got a story about how the city is spending your tax dollars on tree management — or failing to — send it our way. We'll dig in.

But personal essays about your favorite conifer? There's a Substack for that.