# Should the city save trees?



## Hddnis (Nov 21, 2009)

Split out from the crane thread to keep it on topic. These are some thoughts to ponder and I look forward to replies.

You want to save trees? Give a tax credit for every tree on a lot in the city limits. That puts a society value on the trees and reduces taxes at the same time. 

Everyone will have an idea how to do _anything_ better than the guy doing it.

We see trees and want permits. The next guy sells cars and he wants to say you have to wash them weekly and buy a new one every two years. Someone else mows grass and he wants to say you can only mow it a certain height and only during business hours.

My point is this kind of stuff gets crazy. It goes downhill fast, people need to manage what they have and leave what others have alone. 

Snowbirds, yeah, I know the type. They can sometimes be rather selfish. I figure if they want to live in a sterile utopia then they get what they deserve.

I remember when my local big city was considering a system of permits for tree removal. One of the primary pushers lived in a house on a tree-less lot. It really stood out because trees are everywhere here, they literally are weeds in many situations, growing out of cracks in the pavement, and I even saw one growing atop a rotting power pole.

Anyway, this lady was asked why no trees and she claimed that the wind took them all out and she had been afraid to replace them. Huh? 

The other idea they had was to require a permit if you wanted a vegetable garden. The guy behind that idea didn't like his neighbor’s garden that he could see from his upstairs home-office window. This brought to light that he didn't have a business license to operate from his home in the city. He still wanted garden permits, but thought they should do away with the home-business license. Nevermind the fact that the older couple next to him had been gardening since the early sixties and he moved it three years ago.


Mr. HE


----------



## ozzy42 (Nov 21, 2009)

The way I see it.
A tree can be one mans treasure ,and another mans nuisance.

If you own the piece of dirt it is on ,you own the tree,and you get to decide.


----------



## logging22 (Nov 21, 2009)

ozzy42 said:


> The way I see it.
> A tree can be one mans treasure ,and another mans nuisance.
> 
> If you own the piece of dirt it is on ,you own the tree,and you get to decide.



How true that is.


----------



## Taxmantoo (Nov 21, 2009)

Hddnis said:


> He still wanted garden permits, but thought they should do away with the home-business license. Nevermind the fact that the older couple next to him had been gardening since the early sixties and he moved it three years ago.



If I knew that fellow, I'd be strongly tempted to go to the animal shelter and collect about ten pounds of cat feces, and then pay him a late night visit...

Either that, or skip the cat crap and go straight to butyric acid in his car's cabin air inlet...


----------



## logging22 (Nov 21, 2009)

Does that really work?:angry2:


----------



## squad143 (Nov 21, 2009)

ozzy42 said:


> The way I see it. If you own the piece of dirt it is on ,you own the tree,and you get to decide.



So I should be able to buy a house, immediately cut down the 100 year old Oak to have an extra parking spot and then decide I don't like the neighborhood and move on?

Toronto has a tree preservation bylaw that does not allow this.

http://www.toronto.ca/trees/private_trees.htm

It is a pain to do tree removal (permits, arborist reports, etc.) but it does protect the urban forest.

Destroying a large beautiful healthy tree just because you bought the property makes as much sense as someone changing the hair color on the Mona Lisa, just because they are rich enough to own it.

-just my 2 cents.




This should stir up some conversation .


----------



## outofmytree (Nov 21, 2009)

I'm with you on this one Squad. We have no permits in Perth and some of the things done here called "tree work" would curdle your blood. I would welcome a permit system similar to that used in Melbourne where it is based on species and size.


----------



## Hddnis (Nov 21, 2009)

squad143 said:


> So I should be able to buy a house, immediately cut down the 100 year old Oak to have an extra parking spot and then decide I don't like the neighborhood and move on?
> 
> Toronto has a tree preservation bylaw that does not allow this.
> 
> ...




Someone who buys the property and takes out the tree will take a hit in property value. If they don't take a hit it means the tree did not have value. Urban forest should be based on monetary value the same as any other forest.


Mr. HE


----------



## BlackenedTimber (Nov 22, 2009)

We may be in an industry where, because of our point of view, we value trees more than a HO or city council member might. That being said, I think the HO has a right to do whatever they want on their property.

I also think that creating increased govt oversight, IN ANY AREA OF OUR LIVES, is a no-go. More taxes, more beaurocracy, more BS.

Many, many trees that are absolutely beautiful are unnecessarily removed every day, but there has got to be some type of soveigrnty granted to the property owner. They do, after all, own the property.

It's a tough question, and I think an overall understanding amongst our clients would better address the situation, rather than govt oversight and regulation. People generally do what they want to do more often than what they are told to do.

T


----------



## Rftreeman (Nov 22, 2009)

squad143 said:


> So I should be able to buy a house, immediately cut down the 100 year old Oak to have an extra parking spot and then decide I don't like the neighborhood and move on?
> 
> Toronto has a tree preservation bylaw that does not allow this.
> 
> ...


this makes me want to go buy a house with really old, big trees and cut them down then sell the house......if you own it then you should be able to do as you please without people butting in..........

permits are nothing more than money makers for the city.......


----------



## BC WetCoast (Nov 22, 2009)

BlackenedTimber said:


> We may be in an industry where, because of our point of view, we value trees more than a HO or city council member might. That being said, I think the HO has a right to do whatever they want on their property.
> 
> T



Nonsense, just because I own my property and my neighbour owns his, doesn't mean either of us can open a nightclub/powerplant/mushroom composting site on our property. Zoning bylaws, Official Community Plans, restrict what can be done on property. 

I'm not sure about the US, but in Canada, just because you own your property, doesn't mean you own the dirt. I owned a house where the sub-surface rights were owned by a large oil company.


----------



## outofmytree (Nov 22, 2009)

It certainly is true that here you must have a permit to do any construction work on your property. Even the patio we added this year had to have council approval. The reason given for this is to avoid shoddy construction which creates a danger to others. By this same logic removing a significant tree should require a permit to ensure the work done will be to standard if indeed it is required to be done at all. 

I like the idea of a tax credit of some form applied to significant trees. There is no better way to get peoples attention than via their wallet. I bet the number of removals done because "the leaves fill up my gutter " would drop dramatically if they were to lose a tax break because of it.


----------



## derwoodii (Nov 22, 2009)

This is a big conversation, I try to distill it down.

Sadly sometimes healthy and valued trees are removed by ignorant or for selfish interests.

Sadly the work will be done by a minority number of ill informed or self interested tree contractors who see $ instead of amenity value or natural beauty. 

More often than not, no Local gov, Shire, City, State or Federal tree controls will stop this vandalism. Typically done by people who care not for laws of the land nor benefit's of nature. 

Implementing tree controls only captures the honest and law abiding citizen & the well educated tree contractor adding cost and effort to them both undertaking normal home tree maintenance.

So what to do? 

My "idea dream or delusion" is for (Government) to avoid tree works permits, just set basic community values for tree preservation. Engage & help the tree industry, weed out the few rouge tree contractors by creating a list of responsible or Approved Tree Contractors. Those that know tree value whilst balancing tree maintenance needs. These contractors may advertise with a form of "Government" approval. They would be self regulating as poor or predatory work would be reported. 
The "Government" would only need to try manage its few rouge citizen / tree contractors and not impose more laws & cost upon the tree hugging majority.


----------



## rmihalek (Nov 22, 2009)

*dbh*

One potential solution would be a dbh limit for removals. For example, any tree with dbh equal to or exceeding 24 inches (71cm) requires a "removal review" whereby citizens of the town can grant or deny permission remove the tree at a monthly town meeting. Arborists can be brought in to provide options other than removal.


----------



## ozzy42 (Nov 22, 2009)

squad143 said:


> So I should be able to buy a house, immediately cut down the 100 year old Oak to have an extra parking spot and then decide I don't like the neighborhood and move on?


Absolutely





> Toronto has a tree preservation bylaw that does not allow this.


So do many cities in the U.S.
That is one reason some will not live within certain city limits.




> Destroying a large beautiful healthy tree just because you bought the property makes as much sense as someone changing the hair color on the Mona Lisa, just because they are rich enough to own it.


 Exagerated analogy,but if someone willingly chooses to decrease the value of something they purchased with their hard earned money,that is their right.


----------



## Mikecutstrees (Nov 22, 2009)

Just today I looked at a 37" oak in perfect health that a homeowner wants down. It produces alot of acorns which attract alot of mice which is a problem for the homeowner. Also his wife is nervous about the tree falling on the house. The tree is structurally sound and leaning away from the house. I informed him about the structural integrity of the tree but he still wants to remove it. I think it is his property and his right to do as he feels fit. I am NOT for more laws. I enjoy my freedom to choose and believe others should be able to make choices for themselves. This country was founded on personal freedoms and I think too much of that is being taken away recently. good discussion here..... Mike


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Nov 22, 2009)

ozzy42 said:


> Absolutely
> 
> 
> 
> Exagerated analogy,but if someone willingly chooses to decrease the value of something they purchased with their hard earned money,that is their right.



What if their actions decrease your property values? Someone clearcuts a wooded area?


----------



## BlackenedTimber (Nov 22, 2009)

BC WetCoast said:


> Nonsense, just because I own my property and my neighbour owns his, doesn't mean either of us can open a nightclub/powerplant/mushroom composting site on our property. Zoning bylaws, Official Community Plans, restrict what can be done on property.
> 
> I'm not sure about the US, but in Canada, just because you own your property, doesn't mean you own the dirt. I owned a house where the sub-surface rights were owned by a large oil company.



Not Nonsense.

What's nonsense is the fact that you don't own the dirt beneath your house, and have to get someone/somethings approval to implement changes on your own property. Zoning by-laws and official community plans are alot of BS if you ask me. 

Whats also nonsense is comparing removing a tree to having a night club, power plant, or mushroom composting plant in your backyard. Apples to oranges. However, if I lived in the middle of nowhere, and I decided I wanted to compost 400,000 cubic yards of mushrooms, and I owned all the property and resources, then I would dare you to try and stop me. 

This type of progressive thinking threatens the very values that our country (The US of :censored:ing A) was founded upon. I am inherently free to do as I see fit, and that right translates to my personal property, including real property, as well. If I have a big beautiful tree, and I feel I need to cut it down, regardless of outside opinion or of the govt at any level, that ought to be my right. 

That being said, I love and value trees. They are wonderful organisms, and I enjoy working with them. However, just because my (or our) opinion of a tree's value differs from a HO's opinion of the tree's value, does not mean that I have THE RIGHT to tell that homeowner that he cannot do what he pleases on his own property. I can make recommendations and arguements against removal, and I can even start a community awareness movement designed to protect historic trees in the locale. However, I cannot endorse legislature that limits another mans' freedom based on my own admittedly biased opinions.

I don't need the govt babysitting me. The govt can't run anything efficiently, and allowing the govt, at any level, to be involved in our line of work will create a beaurocracy with which we will all be forced to work. If you think it's hard to make money now, just wait until there is a govt tree trimming agency slapped on all of our backs as dead weight.


----------



## Taxmantoo (Nov 22, 2009)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> What if their actions decrease your property values? Someone clearcuts a wooded area?



You think you have the right to sit on your developed lot next to a woods, but the guy who owns the woods doesn't have the right to develop HIS land????

You want a wooded buffer zone around your property? Buy one. 
I know a fellow who lived next to a farm for 40-50 years. The farm was busted up into pieces and sold when the owner died a few years ago. He didn't want neighbors sprouting up too close to him, so he bought 14 acres of the farm where it adjoined his yard and planted it in trees. He has every right to keep those trees from being cut.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Nov 22, 2009)

> You think you have the right to sit on your developed lot next to a woods, but the guy who owns the woods doesn't have the right to develop HIS land????



We are talking about post developmental communities, not city slickers moving in next to a beef cattle operation and complaining about the smell. My city has regulations on how much you can cut over a wooded lot.

For that matter, i did go to the board meeting and object to the development of an eight acre parcel across the street from me that the developer wanted to put some 52 single family units on. That would have put more then 100 more cars on the road, they would have had to put in city water at 125/front foot, and I have 235 of those. All the lots in the neighborhood are 1.5 acre or larger (we have 1.65 or so) the tract development of McMansions would have changed the "flavor" of the neighborhood.

It is called "community" for for a reason, if you want to live where you can have your own Camaro junkyard, then live there, if you want to live in a place where it is dictated what type of roof you can have... A little much for me.

Those of you who say that doing what you dang well please is the American Way do not know a lick about history. that is why people kept moving west, so they would not have neighbors telling them what color to paint the outhouse. 

No whorehouse in town, why that is Un-American!


----------



## ROOTSXROCKS (Nov 22, 2009)

ozzy42 said:


> Absolutely
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Its a social contract that makes a community that can be expected to uphold certian standards, Ours had Deed restrictions in place when the lots were divided up, at first I was pretty resistant to code enforcment, however seeing what could come to pass without it I concede that If I am living this surrounded I will sacrifice some liberties in exchange for the security of my street not turning into a slum. I'm free to move out any time to a larger parcel or a town that has no restrictions. 



John Paul Sanborn said:


> We are talking about post developmental communities, not city slickers moving in next to a beef cattle operation and complaining about the smell. My city has regulations on how much you can cut over a wooded lot.
> 
> For that matter, i did go to the board meeting and object to the development of an eight acre parcel across the street from me that the developer wanted to put some 52 single family units on. That would have put more then 100 more cars on the road, they would have had to put in city water at 125/front foot, and I have 235 of those. All the lots in the neighborhood are 1.5 acre or larger (we have 1.65 or so) the tract development of McMansions would have changed the "flavor" of the neighborhood.
> 
> ...



A place I am very familiar with the entire valley saw what could happen when a large ranch was subdivided into 5 acre lots, Thankfully the natural beauty prevailed and restrictions were set into place that in the valley no property could be subdivided into less than 100 acre plots and in the foothills 35 Acres the minimum land area for a well. 
Notice I didn't say the place because I'm in I would rather the gate stay closed.


----------



## BlackenedTimber (Nov 22, 2009)

JPS,

I know a thing or two about American History, particularly the part where we got tired of the English telling us what we could and couldn't do.

I'm fairly ceratin that the concept of "Manifest Destiny", free land, and reported riches gained mining gold and other minerals had alot to do with people moving westward, aided by the presence of the US Army before and after the civil war.

Maybe I am crazy for thinking that we all have a right to live our lives as we see fit and not impinge upon others. Yes, this is a double-edged sword, but there are far worse things to do to your neighbor than remove your own tree. Again, I acknowledge that becuase of our line of work, we are going to value trees more highly than the standard HO, but that still does not give us sufficient leverage to affect the way others choose to live their lives.


----------



## ozzy42 (Nov 22, 2009)

ROOTSXROCKS said:


> Its a social contract that makes a community that can be expected to uphold certian standards, Ours had Deed restrictions in place when the lots were divided up, at first I was pretty resistant to code enforcment, however seeing what could come to pass without it I concede that If I am living this surrounded I will sacrifice some liberties in exchange for the security of my street not turning into a slum. I'm free to move out any time to a larger parcel or a town that has no restrictions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You bring up a very good point with deed restricted communities,
Those that wish to live in a neighborhood where they must get consent to do any changes that would be considered out of the ordinary[tree removals ,mulch beds changed to river rock,decorative driveways,fences trampolines,boats ,etc,etc]. 
That is fine for those that choose to do so.
Not my cup of tea.
Non restricted is a different story. 

The county I live in has a code that all must adhere to as far as unlicensed vehicles ,building setbacks,overgrown lots and such.But they leave all the cosmetics,including peoples preference to how they landscape their property,up to the property owner.



BTW. 
A lot of the DR communities drew contoversy last year when owners were given fines for having dead lawns BC we were under water restrictions do to the drought,and they could only replace their lawns with another St.augustine lawn instead of something that would do better during the dry times. 
More than a few had buyers remorse.











John Paul Sanborn said:


> It is called "community" for for a reason, if you want to live where you can have your own Camaro junkyard, .



John,if you were poking fun at me for my avatar,I am deeply offended.
























All of my cars were powerd by vintage TIN INDIANS :hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## Taxmantoo (Nov 22, 2009)

ROOTSXROCKS said:


> Ours had Deed restrictions in place when the lots were divided up...



I'm fine with deed restrictions. If you all want to contractually restrict each other's usage of your properties more power to you. If I don't like the restrictions, I don't have to buy the property. 

When I get fighting mad is when you ask government to do it to me without my consent.


----------



## squad143 (Nov 22, 2009)

When we live in a city (urban setting) we are in close proximity to others. Usually the closer the proximity, the more rules (bylaws).

“I can do what I want because it is my land” does not work in the urban setting. This attitude gets people upset and when enough people get upset they ask the elected officials to make a rule. We live in a democracy. It's how it works.

Should a *City* save trees? In my opinion, Yes. In the city, the tree in one person's yard does have an affect (value and otherwise) to their neighbors. The trees help all in City in keeping temperatures cooler in the summer, assist with water run off and convert carbon dioxide into oxygen. I would not want to live in a city with few trees. I don’t think I would want to live in a concrete jungle.

With rural property owners, it is a different matter. Your actions usually have less affect on your neighbors.




The Mona Lisa.... ya, maybe that was a little out there.


----------



## ROOTSXROCKS (Nov 22, 2009)

ozzy42 said:


> You bring up a very good point with deed restricted communities,
> Those that wish to live in a neighborhood where they must get consent to do any changes that would be considered out of the ordinary[tree removals ,mulch beds changed to river rock,decorative driveways,fences trampolines,boats ,etc,etc].
> That is fine for those that choose to do so.
> Not my cup of tea.
> ...


As you may have seen in my prunis thread I am comfortable in an environment that is cart Blanche and I need space, fate left me here "temporarily" 10 years ago but now I have grown pretty settled in. regardless Id take a bigger piece further out in the woods and away from the beach in a heartbeat. 


taxmantoo said:


> I'm fine with deed restrictions. If you all want to contractually restrict each other's usage of your properties more power to you. If I don't like the restrictions, I don't have to buy the property.
> 
> When I get fighting mad is when you ask government to do it to me without my consent.


 then how far are you willing to protect the natural beuty of and area were you can see for miles such as in the second part of my post. If you had the view of a grand mountain would it be OK fo someone to come build a skyscraper in front of you ? 
would it be Ok for a company to strip mine the mountains. thankfully we do have national parks and wilderness that are protected,


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Nov 23, 2009)

> I know a thing or two about American History, particularly the part where we got tired of the English telling us what we could and couldn't do.



And how divided was that! There were many Torries and ambivalent people who wished that the rabble rousers would leave the status quo. But then that is a tangent for another place and time


----------



## BlackenedTimber (Nov 23, 2009)

I am not trying to pick a fight here, I just think that we all have personal liberties guaranteed to us by the US Constitution, and as long as we are living our lives to our contentment without impeding the lives of others, we ought to be able to do as we please.

Yes, a neighbor cutting down a wooded lot may ruin the view from your front porch and decrease your land value, but that is his/her perogative. Maybe if land values are lowered, a property assessment would be in order, and you might be eligible for lower property taxes... I dont know.

Trees are beutiful things that we have all been blessed with. Yes, I love to see trees revered and preserved. However, our opinions are guaranteed to be skewed given our profession, and our opinions, right as they may be, are not grounds to dictate how others should live their lives.

As many can guess by now, I am a proponent of less govt regulation and therefore less beurocracy. I think there is an inherent responsibility bestowed upon all members of society to act as responsible custodians for our resources, trees or otherwise. That is why I think an overall understanding fostered between home/property owners, arborists, and prominent members of our local societies would be far more effective in preserving historic, beautiful, or otherwise valuable trees, rather than dictating that a HO must do this, or must do that.

T


----------



## ROOTSXROCKS (Nov 23, 2009)

I'd say that maximizing Liberty is essential, however in order that we have paved and maintained roads, police and fire protection, we exchange some liberties for those comforts only possible with the entire community cooperating.

You are Absolutely right A man should be able to do with his property as he wishes, however as a community we strive to look out for the common good, so exceptions are made. this is one of those exceptions I am willing to make.
just like I am willing to abide by traffic rules for mutual safety.
From http://www.interfacesouth.org/resources/files/urban_forestry_needs_Assesment.pdf


> Floridians may diverge from the national trends in their perception of the costs and problems. The cost of tree maintenance, loss of private property rights, and fear of substantial loss of personal property and safety during hurricanes were strongly expressed as negative aspects of urban trees and forests.


Tree and forest ordinances, just as with code for buildings or streets, are used to assure that certain practices are adopted uniformly across the community to achieve the common good. Tree ordinances most often address public trees, and set limits of removal and pruning. The greatest
hazard to trees in many communities is forest removal for new development. Some communities extend protection to trees found on private property that are deemed significant due to age, size, historic, cultural, or ecological
criteria.


> Trees are More than Beautification . . . .
> Street and park trees were once the focus of urban forestry programs in cities and towns. Communities are becoming
> more interested in achieving sustainability. We now know that the urban forest can be a part of all the places where
> people live, work, play, and learn in cities. Scientific studies have helped us to understand that trees provide many benefits,
> ...


----------



## Adkpk (Nov 23, 2009)

SAVE OUR NATIONS TREES! Thanks for starting this Hddnis. 

I don't car if take laws, permits or education just stop cutting living trees to suit some homeowners whims. (Like acorns, leaf clean ups, or swimming pools).

"Deed restrictions" that would do it. If in every town the "town arborist" would access the value of the trees as well as the property and reports were made after each sale of the property. The report would be discussed at some point to the new owners so they knew what was expected for the care of the trees. That would start the wheels turning to educating people to the *VALUE*of their trees. Keep them from cutting them down for stupid reasons. 

It was mentioned back there about a law enforced to keep your lawn at a certain length. The town I work in has such a law. I'm not sure but I think the fine after a warning is $200.


----------



## ROOTSXROCKS (Nov 23, 2009)

here the Grass must not be over 12 inches over 80% of the yard, rough for Bahia grass that sends up 1 foot tall seed stems in no time. 

but the peculiar thing about that code is that Bahia are the most drought tolerant, and those that don't like to mow never water and they cut the grass down to the basal allowing the whole yard to fill with weeds.

I have as little grass as I can get away with , the rest is tropical Garden with ponds fountains gingers bananas bamboos ect... only needs clean up once a year and the rest of the time casual maintenance is sufficient.


----------



## Hddnis (Nov 24, 2009)

The reason I suggested a tax credit is that everyone wants to save trees, but they want the guy who owns the trees to pay for it.

If you have a tree you pay for all the clean-up year 'round. You also pay for trimming, spraying, fertilizing, storm clean-up, the liability of damage or injury, lightening protection and at the end you pay to remove it and grind the stump. Trees are expensive, I know because I get paid to work on them. 

Some claim that the tree has a value to society, to the climate, and to the community. I suggest that if that value is tangible then the trees should be paid for by those who benefit. If I used your truck all the time I should help you with the expense of maintaining it.



Mr. HE


----------



## ROOTSXROCKS (Nov 24, 2009)

That's reasonable, tax credits for Trees over 24" something like a 5000.00 exemption for each 24" or over healthy tree.


----------



## outofmytree (Nov 24, 2009)

Hddnis said:


> The reason I suggested a tax credit is that everyone wants to save trees, but they want the guy who owns the trees to pay for it.
> 
> If you have a tree you pay for all the clean-up year 'round. You also pay for trimming, spraying, fertilizing, storm clean-up, the liability of damage or injury, lightening protection and at the end you pay to remove it and grind the stump. Trees are expensive, I know because I get paid to work on them.
> 
> ...



:agree2:


----------



## NCTREE (Nov 24, 2009)

BlackenedTimber said:


> We may be in an industry where, because of our point of view, we value trees more than a HO or city council member might. That being said, I think the HO has a right to do whatever they want on their property.
> 
> I also think that creating increased govt oversight, IN ANY AREA OF OUR LIVES, is a no-go. More taxes, more beaurocracy, more BS.
> 
> ...


[/I]

I know people on here are against gov. jobs and bigger gov. but instead of wasting tax payer money on BS jobs and spending like judges billing the gov. $12000 a year to use their own car to go to work why don't we have gov. arborist who are responsible for regions in there state. My state has foresters who are responsible for forests in a certain districts why can't we do this for individual trees. THe arborist would be responsible for mapping these trees, buliding relations and educateding HOs along with monitoring these trees. THey could certainly give unbiased opinions to HOs about there trees.
Also Pa has tax incentives for property owners who own acres of undeveloped land called the Clean and Green Act, i'm sure all those great thinking in Washington could come up with something to insure old trees are preserve.


----------



## Adkpk (Nov 24, 2009)

I think if a lawyer, during a closing, told the new h.o.'s the accessed value of their trees and landscape this would start something going in the direction of better care for the trees. A disclosure sheet would get a sig and go in the pile of papers filled at a closing. 

Then, as you and I know there's your good trees for the landscape situation and the bad tree's. Hopefully it would start a whole new maintenance program with your trees instead of, "let's cut this tree because the leaves are getting expensive to remove in the fall", scenario. If they knew how much those leaves are worth when the sun is out and 95 degrees they might learn to like the damn thing.


----------



## treevet (Nov 24, 2009)

There are some assumptions being made by people in favor of letting gummit decide on tree removals.

1. They know when a tree is hazardous or not. Heck, we don't even know that for sure as there are huge areas of gray matter here. If you take our town council for example, I know for certain they don't know a dogwood from a redwood nor does anyone advising them. City Arb....not in the budget.

2. They CARE if the tree favors removal because its risk to damaging your property or personal injury outweighs its aesthetic presence. One guy came up to me after a huge lead fell on a house and the remaining 8 foot dia oak right next to a house and street was 90 percent hollow. I pointed this out to him and said this tree could likely kill somebody. His reply...."so what, the tree is worth more"

Aren't we being a little hypocritical about saving every tree when trees were likely cleared to build our own house at some time in the past. 

Also sometimes, as everything has an end, it is time for the tree to end and PLANT some more. I usually plant 2 trees for every tree I remove. I can make as good a decision as anyone in the world if a tree should come down for safety or not. If you are a tree hugger then thoroughly educate yourself and get in a position to make decisions.

Not just get that warm and fuzzy feeling in your gut and narc out your neighbor because you "really always loved that big hunk of tree".


----------



## ROOTSXROCKS (Nov 24, 2009)

replanting another tree is the requirement here once you have permitted a cut, Pines are exempt from the requirement by state law.


----------



## Taxmantoo (Nov 24, 2009)

Adkpk said:


> It was mentioned back there about a law enforced to keep your lawn at a certain length. The town I work in has such a law. I'm not sure but I think the fine after a warning is $200.




Maybe CaseyForest or computeruser could correct me on the exact figures, but Lansing, MI is pretty famous for grass enforcement. If it hits 6" when you go on vacation, they will hire somebody to cut it for you ($50-100 for a small city yard) and then bill you for it ($200-400, city's gotta turn a profit too). 

OTOH, if the city owns the property, 3' grass is just fine.


----------



## Hddnis (Nov 24, 2009)

I think the answer really is just as simple as planting more. 

People and trees don't live forever. There is a cycle of life, they grow up, they die, they fall down or get taken down, and new trees grow to replace them. We think of them as big and beautiful and valuable, but that is only because they live longer than us and we have learned how they benefit us.

I can honestly say that I've planted hundreds of trees for every one I've removed. Some developments were bare field before the construction started. Several truck loads of trees later and now they truly are an urban forest. 

A few times I've talked older people into replacing a tree with the line "Even if you live to be a hundred, the new tree is not going to be big enough to be a problem for you." 

Often they will take a tree out because they want to lose a recurring expense and so they pay a large one time expense for removal.

I look at it as win-win-win, they get the "big messy dangerous" tree gone, I get paid to take it out, and the trees get a good replacement that is sized and positioned correctly for the lot.

If you love trees you plant more of them. If you try to save every tree you just end up frustrating yourself and making people mad at you.


Mr. HE


----------



## Taxmantoo (Nov 25, 2009)

logging22 said:


> Does that really work?:angry2:



What, butyric acid in the vent grill or injected through a window seal with a needle? It's worse than leaving a dead body in the car on a hot day, and it's virtually impossible to get rid of the smell. Consider it about as drastic as dropping a tree on a car, but not as obvious.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Nov 25, 2009)

taxmantoo said:


> What, butyric acid in the vent grill or injected through a window seal with a needle? It's worse than leaving a dead body in the car on a hot day, and it's virtually impossible to get rid of the smell. Consider it about as drastic as dropping a tree on a car, but not as obvious.



They've used it to "terrorize" abortion centers. I've heard that if it is used with an oil carrier it is even worse.


----------



## fishercat (Nov 25, 2009)

*city should do nothing.*

city governments should be dismantled and done away with.


----------



## Tree Pig (Nov 25, 2009)

fishercat said:


> city governments should be dismantled and done away with.



Crap then who is going to sign my check?


----------



## Adkpk (Nov 25, 2009)

It's not often a thread goes as well as this one on AS. Might seem strange but I agree with all that was posted (except Lansing Mi cutting your lawn while your away and charging a fortune for it, bastards). 
I like the laws in the town I work in. The taxes are staggering but they do a good job of taking care of town business. But in regards to this thread they protect the landmark trees. That live oak in the "crane" thread would need a permit to remove.


----------



## fishercat (Nov 25, 2009)

*well...............*



Stihl-O-Matic said:


> Crap then who is going to sign my check?



you could sign it yourself!


----------



## BC WetCoast (Nov 26, 2009)

fishercat said:


> city governments should be dismantled and done away with.



Yet another innane comment from a neocon.


----------



## fishercat (Nov 26, 2009)

*Lol*



BC WetCoast said:


> Yet another innane comment from a neocon.



stay up there in socialism then.

i don't even like neocons.

if you can't see that the government screws up everything it touches,i feel sorry for you.

too much waste and incompetence.


----------



## NCTREE (Nov 26, 2009)

fishercat said:


> stay up there in socialism then.
> 
> i don't even like neocons.
> 
> ...



I can see this is a turning point in this thread so I might as well send it on its way.

Labels...so many labels its rediculous. lets hate on everyone that doesn't think like me.

Lets see everything in black and white, hell! why don't we all just kill eachother and who ever is left can make the rules.

Where ignorance leads stupidity follows


----------



## ozzy42 (Nov 26, 2009)

NCTREE said:


> .
> 
> Labels...so many labels its rediculous. lets hate on everyone that doesn't think like me.



Wow.Accuse people of labeling




















> Where ignorance leads stupidity follows



And then label them .


----------



## NCTREE (Nov 26, 2009)

ozzy42 said:


> Wow.Accuse people of labeling
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That wasn't a label, that was an observation


----------



## treevet (Nov 26, 2009)

ozzy42 said:


> Wow.Accuse people of labeling




You labeled him for labeling people who label people? I'll drink to that. 

















And then label them .[/QUOTE]


----------



## NCTREE (Nov 26, 2009)

treevet said:


> You labeled him for labeling people who label people? I'll drink to that.
> 
> Your confusing an observation with a label. Now if I said liberals are idiots or conservatives are ignorant that would be a label. Obviously I can't make that statement because I don't know or talk to all liberal or conservatives.
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]

Your confusing an observation with a label. Now if I said liberals are idiots or conservatives are ignorant that would be a label. Obviously I can't make that statement.


----------



## treevet (Nov 26, 2009)

> Your confusing an observation with a label. Now if I said liberals are idiots or conservatives are ignorant that would be a label. Obviously I can't make that statement.



I simply said ...he labeled you for labeling people that label people. 

didn't say he was right...just said he labeled you fo.....ahhhhhforgetit


----------



## NCTREE (Nov 26, 2009)

Hey treevet Happy Thanksgiving and to everyone. I'm thankful for AS and all the awesome tree people in here, chit! i'm labeling.


----------



## treevet (Nov 26, 2009)

:hmm3grin2orange: Backatcha and the fam NC. Catch myself getting a little grin or even a little yuk or two just walking around during the day and the wife wonders what's up.

It's AS ....but she wouldn't get it so I just say nothing.


----------



## ROOTSXROCKS (Nov 26, 2009)

When you got Libby's, Libby's, Libby's on the label, label, label you got goodness, goodness, goodness on the table, table, table.

Yep! Now you're stuck. You remember it don't you?


----------



## Tree Pig (Nov 26, 2009)

ROOTSXROCKS said:


> When you got Libby's, Libby's, Libby's on the label, label, label you got goodness, goodness, goodness on the table, table, table.
> 
> Yep! Now you're stuck. You remember it don't you?



Holy crap now I am going to be singing that in my head at Thanksgiving dinner tonight you A-hole


----------



## ROOTSXROCKS (Nov 26, 2009)

Stihl-O-Matic said:


> Holy crap now I am going to be singing that in my head at Thanksgiving dinner tonight you A-hole



Its a tradition LMAO if I could only find a video I would infect the world today


----------



## NCTREE (Nov 26, 2009)

treevet said:


> :hmm3grin2orange: Backatcha and the fam NC. Catch myself getting a little grin or even a little yuk or two just walking around during the day and the wife wonders what's up.
> 
> It's AS ....but she wouldn't get it so I just say nothing.



:hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## fishercat (Nov 26, 2009)

*knowing you................*



Stihl-O-Matic said:


> Holy crap now I am going to be singing that in my head at Thanksgiving dinner tonight you A-hole



you were probably already singing it before he mentioned it.


----------



## Tree Pig (Nov 26, 2009)

fishercat said:


> you were probably already singing it before he mentioned it.



no actually I was singing this 

I wish I were an Oscar Mayer Weiner
That is what I truly wish to be
cause if i were a oscar mayer weiner
everyone would be in love
oh everyone would be in love
everyone would be in love with me


----------



## fishercat (Nov 27, 2009)

*you have some serious issues.*



Stihl-O-Matic said:


> no actually I was singing this
> 
> I wish I were an Oscar Mayer Weiner
> That is what I truly wish to be
> ...



:greenchainsaw:


----------



## treevet (Nov 27, 2009)

that power of suggestion stuff is bull and boring as well.............yawn......picture me yawwwwnnnnninnnggg


----------



## Taxmantoo (Nov 27, 2009)

BC WetCoast said:


> Yet another innane comment from a neocon.



No, neocons _like_ overbearing governments. Look at GW Bush (or the entire Repugnant Party) for example.


----------



## NCTREE (Nov 27, 2009)

How about when you are in the tree, you have a song in your head and the ground guy starts singing it.


----------



## treevet (Nov 27, 2009)

taxmantoo said:


> No, neocons _like_ overbearing governments. Look at GW Bush (or the entire Repugnant Party) for example.



ONE thing you can say about the Bushes is if you want to start a war with us you're gonna get your asses kicked.

Same cannot be said for the dumbocrats, Obaga sht and his socialist reparational party


----------



## NCTREE (Nov 27, 2009)

treevet said:


> ONE thing you can say about the Bushes is if you want to start a war with us you're gonna get your asses kicked.
> 
> Same cannot be said for the dumbocrats, Obaga sht and his socialist reparational party



I'm sure Palin would do a much better job HA! Seems like the rep. party's canidates just keep getting dumb and dumber. I don't like Obama either think he's biting off more than he can chew. I refuse to be in either party.

Anyone ever see the movie Idiocracy it's nowhere near good but it does have a point.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Nov 27, 2009)

*You asked for it, you got it!*

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/97L9ptEUsys&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/97L9ptEUsys&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Darn, why does that work only some of the time?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97L9ptEUsys


----------



## jefflovstrom (Nov 27, 2009)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> What if their actions decrease your property values? Someone clearcuts a wooded area?



So should I ask the guy next door not to cut his trees becuase I bought here for your trees? Or should I ask him before I buy the property and get a signed contract that he will not cut down any trees because it will bring my property value down> What if it brings his property value up? Just wondering,
Jeff opcorn:


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Nov 27, 2009)

jefflovstrom said:


> So should I ask the guy next door not to cut his trees becuase I bought here for your trees? Or should I ask him before I buy the property and get a signed contract that he will not cut down any trees because it will bring my property value down> What if it brings his property value up? Just wondering,
> Jeff opcorn:



The city of Franklin has a ordnance that if you cut more then 10% during development you must put the rest into a trust perpetuity. I've been going back and forth about having a sustainable use clause for woodlots.

One story I heard is where Mr. T. bought into a town in IL that had tree laws. He unknowingly had a company come in and top "everything" as i was told it. He and the practitioner got slapped with heavy fines and remediation requirements because the was permitting required and a no topping code.

What we are discussing here is the concept of community rights versus the individuals. The idea Franklin has, and many other growing munie's, is that developers find it more profitable to clearcut and install what they can get on the cheap. Many stands of remnant forest and mature second growth get destroyed because nobody has taken into account the value to the community and the regional ecology.

It has been stated that the individuals rights end where they interfere with another rights. I am taking the stand that indiscriminate cutovers infringe on the rights and needs of the community in many ways


----------



## squad143 (Nov 27, 2009)

Another case of a developer destroying trees against the municipalities permit law:

http://www.yrng.com/Leisure/Environment/article/99765


----------



## ozzy42 (Nov 27, 2009)

treevet said:


> You labeled him for labeling people who label people? I'll drink to that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]

I take it all back.
I was actually just observing his observence of others who were observing.


----------



## derwoodii (Nov 28, 2009)

2 story's from each end of this debate. 
Ist our past Prime minister brother gets caught doing the wrong thing. 
2nd Council gets it wrong, says no to a tree removal permit. Tree falls kills owner.
The issue is large and complex with much to be said and resolved. I say no to Government permits but yes to the industry being more responsible in protecting worthy trees.

1. John Howard's Brother Facing Jail For Chopping Down Endangered Trees 

PRIME Minister John Howard's brother Stan will be prosecuted for chopping down dozens of endangered trees.

Stan Howard, who owns two adjoining properties in Bowral in the NSW Southern Highlands, faces a jail term or a hefty fine if found guilty of knowingly cutting down the threatened species. Mr Howard's wife Caroline recently bought the properties for nearly $6.2 million. 

According to a memo obtained by The Daily Telegraph, Mr Howard approved the trees be cut down because his caretaker, Rohan Corby, was worried the trees posed a risk to his children. 

In November, acting on a tip-off, a Wingecarribee Shire Council ranger visited Mr Corby's home on the Howard property. The ranger had been tipped off by a neighbour, who was annoyed to see dozens of trees being lopped when she had waited a year to be granted approval to have 13 trees chopped down. When he met Mr Howard and Mr Corby, the ranger asked to look at the lopped trees and discovered between 60 and 70 trees had been chopped down. The trees, classed as Southern Highlands shale woodland and Robertson Basalt tall open forest vegetation, are protected under NSW laws as endangered 


2. Timbs v Shoalhaven City Council [7] 

Mr Timbs was killed in his bed, asleep, when a tree blown over by very strong winds fell on the roof of his house. The tree, one of four adjacent to Timbs' house, was the subject of a tree preservation order which required the consent of council to cut any of them down. 

The control factor was significant because the council, through its officer, agreed to advise the Timbs whether the trees were dangerous. The officer's expressed opinion was a representation by him of his capacity to do so based upon his expertise and experience. This raised the standard of care required of him. Accordingly, there should have been more than a routine visual inspection by the officer or advice should have been given to the Timbs that an inspection and independent advice by an expert should be obtained to support an order that the tree could be cut down. In the circumstances the advice was negligent.


----------



## treevet (Nov 28, 2009)

Good stories.

IMO credentials that are highly specialized are the answer. I think we are way too slow in developing these.

Someone with the specialist credential identifying them as a decision maker in the removal of trees with knowledge in disease/decay, structural integrity, local abiotic influences such as prevailing winds, soil conditions for stability, familiarity and access to state of the art detection equipment, etc., etc.....

....is something that is of ultimate importance in our profession if it is to become universally respected along with many other specialties with associated credentials.


----------



## ROOTSXROCKS (Nov 28, 2009)

Monetary value is only meaningful if you are selling your home. 
I think there are some things that can not be measured with a dollar.
Like Home family and health, ones environment can not easily be replaced.

As sentient beings Trees are invaluable to the soul and influence the way we act toward one another, just look at the cultures who live in areas without trees.



> Throughout history, across geographies and cultures, tree worship can be seen, in one form or the other.
> 
> This reverence, although often shrouded in mysticism and superstition, stems from a simple, universal fact of life:
> 
> ...


----------



## Adkpk (Nov 29, 2009)

Here some good articles on the subject. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/nyregion/29tree.html?ref=nyregion These people aren't tree huggers just people out to protect the value of their property. Yes, town laws infringing on your personal property is against the American way. But when the majority is complaining that home owners are stripping the town of it's beauty and devaluing properties then you have a case. 

Listen, I know, I've been a lover of trees all my life and work as a landscaper. How many times have I heard really lame excuses to remove a tree; leaf clean up is the most popular, I don't like trees, I am allergic (like the tree on his property is the only one that he's allergic to), it's messy, someone might be hiding behind it, and oh ya, squirrels, squirrels come to my yard because of the tree.


----------



## jomoco (Nov 29, 2009)

Good stuff ROOTSXROCKS!

I'd love to visit and study an ancient petrified forest!

Trees truly are the foundational structure of countless ecosystems throughout the world.

Symbiotic relationships between trees, plants, animals and insects have been scientifically documented to exist.

We need to emulate and strengthen these symbiotic relationships so they can be integrated into modern communities of the future that are sustainable.

jomoco


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Nov 29, 2009)

We need to isolate some areas and exclude human interaction with them except for maintenance and removal of invasive species. Close off seldom used county roads, logging and fire roads. Many species will not survive in boundary environments that are what many remnant forests have become.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Nov 29, 2009)

Hddnis said:


> Split out from the crane thread to keep it on topic. These are some thoughts to ponder and I look forward to replies.
> 
> You want to save trees? Give a tax credit for every tree on a lot in the city limits. That puts a society value on the trees and reduces taxes at the same time.



I don't like tax credits for something like that. If they get a credit, that expenditure raises taxes for others since taxes pay some kind of bills. Even the recipient would pay a fraction in their taxes to cover any credits for others.

The one aspect I'd like covered, is not so much saving trees, as making sure the process gets paused long enough for everybody to be informed.

That would include notices to neighbors who may have to prepare their trees to prevent sunburn damage. Or requiring some removals to wait for the cool season for the same reason.


----------



## RedlineIt (Nov 29, 2009)

You know, we all talk about how the consumer needs to be educated.

A good, well conducted Municipal tree preservation By-law does exactly that.

I live in an area of 250-300K people administered by over half a dozen municipal councils, from City of, to Town of, to District of, and so on and so on. There is no confusion, if you live in Victoria, these are your by-laws, live in Saanich, those are yours.

Many times I have shown up to do an estimate for an ignorant client (no disrespect, they just did not know) and inform them that the work they are requesting will require a permit. They may cuss and swear a bit at first, but after the grand expenditure of $30 to persue the permit they call me back knowing what an ISA certified arborist is, what can and cannot be done, including pruning with spurs, which trees are protected, which are not and why.

In addition to that, as a CA, I sometimes get to climb with my digital camera, locking blade knife, handsaw and notebook to write a report for the Municipality to base it's removal permit on. Or not. I'm ethical that way.

There's another thread currently on this site about working with contractors. The By-laws here cover it all, including dumping slag in the fenced off Root Protection Zone.

And if any of you think this makes performing tree work here more difficult, it does not. Unless you're a hack who would spur up and top anything for cash.

And for those who believe the healthy 150 year old Oak should come down just on the whim of the owner....break out the chainsaws, I have no issue with you.

I'm just saying that tree protection laws work to our advantage for long term client relationships and the education of our consumer.

RedlineIt


----------



## derwoodii (Dec 3, 2009)

Ok this threads just about dead, but my last post is a brief I tried to get up 10 years ago when my local Gov/Council wanted to bring in Tree works permits /controls. It was dumped and ignored "sniff." But I still think its got some legs and wish it given your thoughts. Praise would be nice, & criticism just as welcome, may teach me to day dream of Utopian worlds.


----------



## treevet (Dec 3, 2009)

derwoodii said:


> Ok this threads just about dead, but my last post is a brief I tried to get up 10 years ago when my local Gov/Council wanted to bring in Tree works permits /controls. It was dumped and ignored "sniff." But I still think its got some legs and wish it given your thoughts. Praise would be nice, & criticism just as welcome, may teach me to day dream of Utopian worlds.



I do not see this as "Utopian". Some negatives here as I am on my city's advisory UFB for council.

1. Where is the education or credentials for the council to be the discerning and deciding entity? 

2. Huge opportunity for nepotism here and I have witnessed it on a consistent basis.

3. Where does the liability lie when a tree causes property or personal damage? This is what scares the council along with the involvement with the ACLU.

4. There are many gray areas in our profession and the property owner should be the deciding entity with their property. Example....EAB.....do you treat ash trees, does the treatment work, is it injurious, is it the right thing to pay rent to your trees or do you remove them and replace them? There is no black and white answer here or in many other infection or infestation or marginal tree removal/retention (decay, aesthetics, safety, property improvement) questions?

An entire council can be as misinformed, stupid, uncaring, biased, ignorant, corrupt....etc. as an individual can.

And councils often form into little packs whether it be incumbents vs newbies or old guard vs new arrivals to the city etc. and often one side is trying to pass something and the other side vetoes it and then later they "get them back" by vetoing something that is obviously the right thing just to get revenge.

Let the property owner decide their own property.


----------



## Hddnis (Dec 4, 2009)

ROOTSXROCKS said:


> Monetary value is only meaningful if you are selling your home.
> I think there are some things that can not be measured with a dollar.
> Like Home family and health, ones environment can not easily be replaced.
> 
> As sentient beings Trees are invaluable to the soul and influence the way we act toward one another, just look at the cultures who live in areas without trees.





Tree are NOT sentient beings. No way, no how. 

Some people aren't even sentient beings. lol



Mr. HE


----------



## Hddnis (Dec 4, 2009)

treevet said:


> I do not see this as "Utopian". Some negatives here as I am on my city's advisory UFB for council.
> 
> 1. Where is the education or credentials for the council to be the discerning and deciding entity?
> 
> ...





Very good points.



Mr. HE


----------



## Hddnis (Dec 4, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> I don't like tax credits for something like that. If they get a credit, that expenditure raises taxes for others since taxes pay some kind of bills. Even the recipient would pay a fraction in their taxes to cover any credits for others.
> 
> The one aspect I'd like covered, is not so much saving trees, as making sure the process gets paused long enough for everybody to be informed.
> 
> That would include notices to neighbors who may have to prepare their trees to prevent sunburn damage. Or requiring some removals to wait for the cool season for the same reason.




Part of the reason I suggested it is that the other people are supposed to be getting a benefit fromt he trees so they should pay the person who pays for the trees.

I really don't think the idea would ever fly. I suggested it merely to point out that there is no free lunch.


Mr. HE


----------



## ROOTSXROCKS (Dec 4, 2009)

Hddnis said:


> Tree are NOT sentient beings. No way, no how.
> 
> Some people aren't even sentient beings. lol
> 
> ...


Let me rephrase that for the Grammarian, since you didn't get it by the context.

Monetary value is only meaningful if you are selling your home.
I think there are some things that can not be measured with a dollar.
Like Home family and health, ones environment can not easily be replaced.

For humans,as sentient beings, Trees are invaluable to the soul and influence the way *we *act toward one another, just look at *the cultures who live in areas without trees*.


----------



## fishercat (Dec 5, 2009)

*since i can't rep ya....................*



treevet said:


> I do not see this as "Utopian". Some negatives here as I am on my city's advisory UFB for council.
> 
> 1. Where is the education or credentials for the council to be the discerning and deciding entity?
> 
> ...



i'll do it here!


----------



## treevet (Dec 5, 2009)

fishercat said:


> i'll do it here!



thanks fishercat


----------



## fishercat (Dec 5, 2009)

*no problem.*



treevet said:


> thanks fishercat



i always compliment political incorrectness.


----------

