Not surprising that far-left progressives would become anti-environmental when the ends justify their means.
While I'm sure this Crusade is "well intentioned"...alas, its simply is ass backwards.
The objective is to encourage conservation of the trees, maintenance and their replacement.
This "process" is anything but that and tells any land owner to:
--Not plant trees in the first place... as its a long drawn out, cumbersome & expensive proposition if you do so.
--You get your ass penalized if you cut the tree, pay expensive fines and have to apply for permits which are complicated, time consuming and expensive.
--If you want to prune or trim your trees... you have to pay expensive fees, get permits which are complicated, time consuming and expensive.
If you want trees, then why not give the landlord a "tax credit" or incentive to plant, keep and maintain trees on the planting strip.... rather than penalize them, fine them and drive up the cost and hassle of planting trees.
Oh... yes, and streamline the permit process, so its not complicated, time consuming and expensive.
In fact the permit should be free.... as the land owner is doing a public service at great cost both in terms of planting, watering and maintaining the tree over its life.
Very smart of Alex Pederson to hide his NIMBYism behind some vague environmentalism.
@3 Where are you coming up with the fees to prune or trim your trees? I read through it and don't see anything about maintenance of trees. Tree service providers have to register which will probably lead to an increase in their fees if you hire one but if you go out and trim your own trees that's allowed. Also the protection ordinances only apply to "significant" trees so if you have a smaller tree you can take it out without any permits or fees. I don't see anything in here that would lead to someone not wanting to plant a tree.
@5: Says someone with a house and a back yard in a neighborhood.
Progressives, at least the Seattle variety, really don’t care about the environment or climate change.
They just want to live for free and don’t care what kind of damage they cause.
@7 it is possible to both own a house with a back yard AND not be a nimby.
@9 You have a house WITH a yard? How dare you!!
You need to raze both house and yard and cram in at least 8 townhomes.
You right wing Trumpers are all alike, just caring about yourself in the middle of a homeless crisis.
We need 2500, more units yesterday!!!
@9: Well, there are things that you wouldn't want to occur in your back yard so the label fits.
@11 sure rainy if that helps you
@ 6 ... You might be unaware, but you can't top or prune a tree without a permit and permission from the city... even if it is in the way of electrical lines or cables.
Here is the SMC... just so you know, because you appear to be a little ignorant on this matter: .... A 2 inch root or branch is pretty small so if you have any real trimming to do, you fall under the regs.
"You will need a permit if your proposed work involves planting or removing/replacing a tree. If your proposed work involves major pruning, which includes pruning branches or roots that are larger than 2 inches or which comprise more than 15% of foliage-bearing area, a permit is required."
The point is.... why make planting and keeping a tree on the planting strip -- complicated, costly and burdensome.
But I guess that kind of just went over your head.
@ 6 I wonder have you ever owned property in the city? .... or are just kind of a vigilante tree guy?
I’m kid sure what you are referencing but here is the city website that clearly states you can prune a private tree without a permit. In fact it says pruning is vital to tree health.
I don’t know if we are just taking past each other. Are you thinking about trees on public areas or critical areas? Those are more regulated.
"Council President Debora Juarez gave special kudos to Pedersen and Councilmember Dan Strauss for working together to 'actually get legislation done.'”
If that isn't a confession of incompetence, I don't know what is.
@15 Your problem may be comprehension.
We are talking about trees on city property, which includes the planting strip in front of owner's property... whether it be an "special tree" or "just an ordinary tree"....The point is to plant, conserve and maintain trees in the city.
So why oh why make the process of planting, maintaining any trees in any area... expensive, cumbersome, time consuming or down right punitive to a property owner ?
To encourage the planting of trees -- it is my humble suggestion we stream line the permit process (make it free actually -- its a public service) reduce the retarded, over regulation, cost sand if you really, really want trees... then "reward" the property owner with a property tax credit.
The city seems to think otherwise, but they have their little fiefdoms to protect... and frankly their jobs.
"For the more progressive, pro-density committee members...#
When did 'progressive' become synonymous with cutting down trees, eliminating setbacks (which provide ground so rainwater can avoid going into the sewer system), increasing global warming by constructing giant heat sink building, targeting private ownership of houses, and promoting ownership of most new buildings to Republican owned companies?
@1 have you seen the tirades against NEPA?
Maybe if they didn't sound like a bunch of LOONS people would take them more seriously.
The hell with the trees. I want to put solar panels on my roof.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.