By Jerry Green
Fifth in a series
Re “Starting Over with Different Kinds of Trees Will Solve Ficus Crisis”
[Editor’s Note: As Carlson Park Coalition leader Jerry Green concludes his critique of City Hall’s perceived low-priority attention to problem-causing ficus trees, we present the final installment of Mr. Green’s address to the City Council at the Nov. 10 meeting. He is explaining how the ficus tree problem in his neighborhood can be resolved.]]
[img]2887|right|Ficus Benjamica (Weeping Fig)||no_popup[/img]Additional costs to keep existing trees
In addition to points in prior emails about the costs of maintaining trees by homeowners’ repairs and city trimming, there is the cost by the city in continually repairing sidewalks and curbs caused by root damage.
Whether roots are alive after ficus trees are removed
When the tree is removed, the roots die. The roots’ only purpose is to feed the tree. With no tree, nature has no use for the roots. The perception that the roots are still living is due to the fact that after a tree is removed, a homeowner may experience future damage. This damage is caused by the roots from adjacent trees. Trees don’t know property line boundaries. Roots can damage your property from a tree across the street or two houses from your home.
Existing framework for removing trees
Currently, a homeowner can apply to the city to replace a tree. Any tree. It is significant to note that the tree in front of your house is not your tree. It is the city’s tree. And the tree in front of your neighbor’s house is not his tree. It is a city tree. I have confirmed with Charles Herbertson, director of Public Works, that a homeowner can petition to have any tree replaced, including the one in front of your neighbor’s house and the one across the street. The burden is the same: To show that a tree is damaging your property. However, this damage cannot be plumbing-related alone. Examples of additional damage would be to your driveway and/or foundation.
Suggested alternative framework
This is suggested in case a group solution is not approved: If a homeowner desires to remove the tree in front of his home, an adjacent house or the house across the street, his willingness to pay for the removal and replacement should be enough to grant the application without further showing. Otherwise, there is the risk of arbitrary denials. This alternative is based upon common knowledge that these trees are destructive.
City is proposing to study a new master plan for its “urban forest”
Just so you aren’t blind-sided at the City Council meeting, Mr. Herbertson stated that the old master plan for the trees has been superseded by a proposed new master plan for the “urban forest” (the new buzzword). This master plan has not been formulated yet and the city “welcomes” input. I see this as just another delaying tactic that never will be implemented in a timely manner, if at all.
Asking the city to pay for repairs to your home while keeping the existing trees
This is a nonstarter. The city has a very limited budget. It would create issues of causation as to whether a repair is tree related. Also the city won’t pay for your private plumber, who could hypothetically overcharge. It would lose control of costs. The city is not going to give homeowners a blank check. You are not going to get your cake and eat it, too.
United we stand, divided we fall
If there is not a consensus as to a proposal to the city, the city will ignore you. Then nothing will be done. You need to tell the city what to do in a realistic, reasonable, rationale, workable, plan. If you just tell the city you have a problem, without a plan, or an unrealistic or unworkable plan, they will say thank you, and move on.
Viable master plan
Just like removing a band-aid, you need to do it all at once, as a group. All the trees need to be removed and replaced, rather than the haphazard, arbitrary way the trees are being removed and replaced today. At the moment, the street looks like a checkerboard of a tree here, a space there, a different type of tree somewhere else. You need uniformity. We can get a group price from a contractor to do all the trees at once, presumably at a lower price. If you remove the tree in front of your house and the tree in front of your neighbor’s house is not removed, the problems won’t be solved. The adjacent tree will still damage your property. If not today, then tomorrow. Let’s make our own master plan for our own “urban forest”.
Removing trees
Everyone likes trees in general. Everyone is sad when a tree is removed in general. However, there has to be a balancing test of the benefits vs. burdens. The issue is not removing the tree, it is replacing the tree with a different species. The new trees will be saplings, much smaller. However, you have to start somewhere. A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. The faster this is implemented, the faster the new trees will be planted and start growing.
Financing
The ity of Brea removed its ficus trees at city expense. The city recognized the problem and remedied it. I spoke to Bill Bollus, in their city management, about this matter.
Mr. Green may be contacted at jerrygreenmessage@gmail.com.
