Put a big cage around the tree, but it must be kept.

By sylvia vogel, sydney | November 16, 2007 12:48 AM

As much as there is strong sentimental and historical value for the tree, if it is indeed diseased and poses a danger to the public, I think the decision of the city to cut it down is a prudent option. They have assured
everyone that a graft of the original tree shall be planted in its place. That’s as good a bargain as one can get. There are occasions when we just have to trust people who are charged with the public good. Of course, to all purists it’s not the same but what is the alternative? Just like all life, there’s always a beginning and an end, even for Anne Frank’s tree. And like Anne, the new tree will always
be a monument that would symbolize the innocence of all young children of all races for all times.

By Carlos Borjal | November 16, 2007 9:17 PM

I am new to this story, having just googled this after hearing about it over the shortwave radio, but I did read Anne Frank's Diary as a child and myself came to adore this tree.

Can it not be treated for its disease and trimmed to spur fresh new growth? It would be a shame to cut it down... I am very sorry of any dangers people feel it will pose to their homes, but it represents so much. I wonder if these homeowners truly realize this.

By Jaymes Reed | November 17, 2007 1:28 AM