Should the city save trees?

[Hddnis]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Does that really work?:angry2:

 

[squad143]

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]

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]

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 .

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]

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]

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 .

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!