Yeah, I read about the massive failure that the eucalyptus trees was. Didn't they plant them for lumber but then realized they sort of suck for that and are now invasive as fuck?
Not sure if it was for lumber, only because they're scattered all over in decorative uses. They're along the major highways and freeways, they're used to "hold" soil on hillsides, and at least in the Kearny Mesa and Carmel Mountain areas, they were used heavily as trees for houses, schools, and businesses due to their low water requirements. I can't speak for anything south of what was the Chargers stadium cause I avoided that mexican cartel cesspit like the plague. But anything in the 760 or 858 area codes had those fucking trees all over in the same way LA has palm trees.
Looks like it was at least partially for lumber. Though, the article does explain that they are basically the worst tree you could plant in a fire-prone area.
Article: https://www.kqed.org/news/11644927/eucalyptus-how-californias-most-hated-tree-took-root-2 Archive: https://archive.today/0DtuF
That's interesting. I wonder why they skirted past Los Angeles. The article is correct, I've seen them up in Monterey, San Jose, and Frisco as well as San Diego, but I don't recall seeing them very often in Los Angeles or the inland empire.
Welcome to the Red Baron Club!
Thank you, boss!
Originally brought to be used as a source of lumber for rail cross-ties, but they are the wrong species, as the wood does not grow straight grained enough. They are highly invasive, and blight the soil underneath with leaves and seeds that drop. Also, a self pruning tree. At least two people have been killed at the zoo by falling branches. They are planted all around 5 & 805, to the border, and all through the many canyons around el cajon blvd. , university ave. park blvd. and the balboa park areas.
They're also all over the Bay area, and select areas of the Los Angeles region, most notably (that I remember) the Montebello area