STFU, Seattle Times:
Council President Richard Conlin recommended protecting trees on most residential property in the city, broadening a more limited proposal from Mayor Greg Nickels.
“We call ourselves the Emerald City for a reason because we think of this as such a green place, and we’re losing that,” Conlin said. Removing trees causes soil erosion, increases pollution and decreases property value and it’s unattractive, he said.
It’s unclear whether the council would support a rule many would consider a violation of private-property rights, even in a city expanding its role as environmental nanny.
Yes, how dare those nannies at the city council tell us we can’t cut down our own heritage trees on our own property. Why, next thing you know, they’ll be telling us we can’t dump our own used motor oil down our own drain, throw our own dead car batteries in our own trash, set off our own fireworks in our own driveway, burn our own trash in our own barrel in our own front yard, or toss the contents of our own chamber pots out our own window!
What, exactly, makes a tree a Heritage Tree? How does one tell the difference between a plain old tree and a Heritage Tree?
You have a chamber pot?
Fireworks are awesome
i hate it when people cut down big, old trees in their yard. i like trees better than i like most people.
Does anyone still pay attention to Bush/McGavick/Rossi endorsing Seattle Times?
A Heritage Tree is the tree that will come crashing down onto your roof or your neighbour’s roof if it isn’t removed before the next wind storm.
Lemme guess, ECB – you live in an apartment?
Lemme guess, ECB – you live in an apartment?
And a couple dozen cats?
“The problem with you people is your cities have never been burned and your mother has never been told to shut up.”
-Charles Bukowski
I also am a fan of big old trees. I can’t wait to plant a few on my property. I’m looking for something with leaves that will change nicely next fall (the one thing I miss about growing up on the east coast). That said, If I felt the need to cut down a tree and the city said I cannot, well the city can go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut.
So I disagree with the agreeable ECB.
It’s the grand old heritage trees that crush cars and bring down power lines as their rotten trunks give in the winter’s storms.
Didn’t the City gleefully take an axe to a couple of dozen trees in Occidental park? Seems like, yet another case of, do as I say not as I do.
Will the city be responsible for all damage done by a tree that wasn’t taken down because of red tape or absolute ruling. What dimwit city bureaucrat will be in charge and how will we be able to force code to be enforced? Why would the city be needed to keep property values up? Does Conlin think the city knows better how to enhance people’s property? Maybe the city should do all landscaping and house painting and clean gutters….
@7 @8
ecb certainly sounds like a nannie.
a good nannie grudge match is ok entertainment while cleaning my turtle aquarium.
Heritage trees may be on either City or private property. Each candidate tree is assessed by a certified arborist and evaluated by a review committee. Trees can be nominated as an individual or a collection, but must have the owner’s approval and meet criteria for health in addition to being selected according to one of the following categories:
Specimen: A tree of exceptional size, form, or rarity.
Historic: A tree recognized by virtue of its age, its association with or contribution to a historic structure or district, or its association with a noted person or historic event.
Landmark: Trees that are landmarks of a community.
Collection: Trees in a notable grove, avenue, or other planting.
You know what else causes soil erosion, increases pollution, and decreases property value and it’s unattractive? Gravel mines. How about a post about Maury Island, Erica?
I wish the Nanny State would infringe on the right of reactionaries to spout off without reading the article first.
@ 10 (Rotten666) Try a parrotia persica – a lovely medium-sized tree whose leaves turn deep orange/red over a long period in the fall. It has lovely deep pink blooms in early spring, so gives a lot of color. Plus, it’s said to do well in the PNW.
I’m not accusing any of this thread’s commenters of this, but a lot of property owners are extremely incapable of accurately judging the “threat level” of trees on their property. Some folks just chop down anything that their vivid imagination tells them is a threat. Such unregulated behavior results in urban deforestation, and desolation.
I think there should be some red tape. Right now, there is almost zero red tape (there IS some, but it is insignificant). I’ve seen trees taken down that had many more years to benefit the community, property values and wildlife.
Without a little more meaningful red tape, Seattle as the “Emerald City” will become a complete joke. The property owners who moved here because of that reputation and don’t contribute by maintaining current trees or planting new ones are parasites.
That said, I hope our definition of “heritage tree” is a sensible one. In California, any tree over a certain diameter qualifies. In the case of dangeroulsy invasive and flammable eucalyptus, this is ridiculous.
I’ve been dumping our chamber pot out the window for years, with nary a peep from the city.
@10 and @18
Parrotia is a nice tree, but it is native to Iran. Try planting something native to the Seattle area; this will more likely grow well, stay healthy, return the feel of the local forests to your yard, and attract local wildlife.
The county has native plant lists and helpful hints for native landscaping and gardening here:
http://green.kingcounty.gov/GoNative/Ind…
Go native. After all, what is one of the most amazing qualities of Seattle? The forests. We can all bring a little bit of that feel back into our neighborhoods without endangering our property.
@19 – I agree.
A couple years ago,some assholes moved onto a neighboring property, cut down six lovely old trees and then moved away. I really wished there had been some sort of protection.
NIMBYs.
Homeowners who unnecessarily cut down trees, or who cut down and then don’t replant an alternative: NIMBYs.
They want to live in the “Emerald City” but don’t help to maintain the green. They want to benefit from their neighbor’s green thumb instead.
I hug trees.
“Private Property” has been something of a misnomer since about the late 1800’s when urbanization began to overtake ruralism as the dominant paradigm for property ownership in this country.
It’s one thing to assert “I can do any damned thing I want with my ‘private property'”, when your next neighbor is several miles away, but as people have become increasingly crowded together in urban and suburban environments, where those neighbors are now literally only feet away, that attitude has got to become increasingly untenable.
Still, I’m always taken aback by the number of city-dwellers who seem to believe that, just because they own a little 1,000 ft sq patch of dirt, they can still treat it, and consequently the people who live on the other little patches of dirt adjoining it, as if they owned 10,000 acres in the middle of a prairie.
$$$$$$$$$$$$
and more
$$$$$$$$$$$$
the tree tax is on its way, you read it here
the secret to too many cuttings of trees is to plant more, very very simple Erica.
Erica, have you ever planted a tree anywhere, under any circumstance? My family are gardners and complusive tree growers and planters. Between us over time we have just planted thousands, everywhere.
maples, walnuts, firs, cedars – small trees are cheap and easily grown if you have a garden, three or four rows of saplings from seed are no big deal
often free from the city or state as well
Plant Eric, quit jumping on every Green idea, OLD and infirm trees must be cut down, even if the seem to look great to the casual eye – and Conlin is sounding like a green wash cook.
Johhny
What actually surprises me about this is to find that anyone still reads the Seattle Times. They have become increasingly irrelevant over the past decade, almost to the point of absurdity now. They pride themselves on going against the general culture of Seattle, which is now starting to just make them like your crazy old uncle who gets drunk and argues loudly with everyone at family dinners, whether he disagrees with them or not.
#10 – red leaf and verrigated leaf hardwood maples and other hardwoods, incl. ash and aspen
My wooden chamber pot is made from heritage trees.
Charles would post a pic of Erica on the pot, with an essay.
can’t. believe. that. we’re. even. talking. about. this.
have the good sense not to cut down trees. some will. maybe they’re assholes. then again, maybe you’re an asshole too for stiffing your waitress.
Per #10 and taking a flying fuck at rolling donut. amen.
I used to live in Austin, TX. and a law that controls tree cutting has been in force there for over 25 years. It protects large trees which enhance the urban landscape and allows for removal of trees that may threaten property. Developers and home-owners have to make adjustments to their plans to preserve trees in situ or pay to move them. This has led to some really creative solutions, there is large grocery store with a tree in the center in West Austin.
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/trees/preserv…
It has worked very well and kept the beautiful live oak from disappearing from the town.
Of course we’ve seen several occurrences in recent years where wealthy land owners have cut down trees on adjacent public land, then claimed to believe that the trees were in fact on their property. So maybe at a minimum someone should have to prove that a tree is in fact theirs before cutting it down.
Conlin may need to check the rhetoric. By asserting that removing a tree decreases property values and is unattractive, he’s using an argument better suited for a market-based solution than a regulatory solution. If the effect of removing a tree is a decrease in property value why would anyone do it? Why would you need to regulate it? People don’t usually have to be threatened with a criminal violation to do what is already in their best interest.
So either Conlin’s evaluation of the effects of tree removal is correct, in which case there is no need for increased regulation, or his evaluation of the effect is hyperbole, but there is a need for regulation. Which is it?
Thanks everybody for the tree suggestions.
#25. It just looks like you missed the point of what private property means. Move back to Cuba commie.
Just kidding.
The only tree related law the city should be able to enforce is if you cut down one tree, you have plant two new ones.
I had a tree that the previous owners had topped at an early age. It had about 8 trunks above the topping. Neighbors had mentioned that the tree whipped back and forth in windy conditions. I had it taken down because of the danger. How much should I have paid the city for the right to protect myself and neighbors?
At what age will the tree need an arborist? Technically you need to consult the city to trim a tree on the planting strip and the city requires you to keep them trimmed.
I would empty my chamber pot out the window … if only I could bear to part with any of these beautiful heritage turds.
@ 15 – “Collection: Trees in a notable grove, avenue, or other planting.”
So, presumably that would apply to Waldo Woods? Oh, no, excuse me… not Waldo Woods… Waldo Woods is going to be decimated for condos, that’s right… There’s profit involved, so the trees have to go, that’s right… Priorities…
and nevermind that most of the Seattle Times ed board lives in communities that have more rigorous tree protection ordinances than Seattle.
Those Bellevue/Kirkland/Redmond Fascists shouldn’t tell us Seatte Fascists how to run our Fascist State. Not all Fascists were Brown Shirts, after all.