Tree Office! Why? Historically, the capacity to own property has bestowed political agency, independence, and even personhood to the property owner. “Forty acres and a mule” were reparations granted to (and then seized back from) freed slaves: a well-known example of the suturing of recognition and territorial control. However, even today, the capacity to own and inherit property diverges markedly with gender. If nonhuman organisms own property, will that change their explicit value in a market-based participatory democracy? This transaction took place between 1820 and 1832. According to the newspaper article, the deed read: “I, W. H. Jackson, of the county of Clarke, of the one part, and the oak tree [. . .] of the county of Clarke, of the other part: Witnesseth, that the said W. H. Jackson for and in consideration of the great affection which he bears said tree, and his great desire to see it protected has conveyed, and by these presents do convey unto the said oak tree entire possession of itself and of all land within eight feet of it on all sides.” Under the new property-ownership regime of Natalie Jeremijenko’s UP2U urban plan, in which the trees have deeded themselves and the property they stand on, trees can of course exploit their property for their own purposes. Moreover, trees assume personhood through the Fourteenth Amendment, which now assumes to grant personhood to corporations. By applying this to trees, trees themselves become corporate/persons, active agents—new citizens. More about Natalie Jeremijenko’s Tree X Office.