Should the city save trees?

[ROOTSXROCKS]

Absolutely




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



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

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.

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!

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]

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]

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.



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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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. LOL yes I found that pretty funny as well I am not a fan of grass and have like 10 feet in from the road in SA turf and thats it. Ours is not a Gated community but prior to the city forming the private restrictions were in place. Some go entirely to far, others not far enough.

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:

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.

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]

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]

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]

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,
in many ways. Here’s a sample of results from studies done by university and government scientists.
Trees contribute to the local economy:
• residential property values are enhanced by up to 20% by the presence of trees
• rental rates are up to 7% higher for commercial office properties having a quality landscape
• consumers report being willing to spend up to 12% more in central business districts having large trees
• desk workers with a view of nature report less illness and greater job satisfaction
• talented workers and firms are drawn to places that have high levels of amenities and environmental quality
Trees provide environmental services:
• better water quality and improved stormwater management
• cooling of paved surfaces which reduces heat island effects
• energy savings in summer cooling and winter heating
• improved air quality
• wildlife habitat and healthier salmon streams
Trees provide human services and health benefits:
• urban neighborhoods having trees and landscape experience lower crime rates
• patients in hospitals who have views of nature from their beds recover faster
• experiences of nearby nature reduce stress response (including driving and commuting)
• children diagnosed with ADHD show reduced symptoms after spending time in outdoor green spaces

 

[Adkpk]

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 VALUEof 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]

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]

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]

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

 

[outofmytree]

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

:agree2:

 

[NCTREE]

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

[/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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Taxmantoo]

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]

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