plant a tree
Finally took out a huge cottonwood hanging over the house last fall. Hated to do it but I am sure I would have been in the same situation CDS described over the winter months with all the heavy snow we had.
Stick to your principles CDS. If you were closer I would have hired you myself.
CD's- I am also in the "green industry". I knew enough when I bought a different house last year with mature trees to hire a professional tree service. I knew what needed to be pruned and what needed to removed. But I still listened to the arborist and let the pros do the work.
A good 40% of the trees are basswood. Basswood is one of those trees that are really nice when theyre few in number. But these bass are like 40 ft tall weeds. Theyve got so little practical value as firewood or lumber material. I would rather have most any other native tree than basswood.
I never heard from them again but several weeks later I saw two guys filling a trailer with a few small branches. Weekenders. Very minor trimming....
I had a feeling that they thought I just wanted to cut their trees down unnecessarily. I've always got plenty of work and don't "sell" jobs that don't need doing but I had the feeling that they didn't trust me or what I told them... Oh well,can't be liked by everyone...
I just drove past the house. Last night's storm broke large (Huge) limbs from both trees and it looks like the house is - as of now - uninhabitable. Tens of thousands of dollars of damage is evident and that's not counting any water damage...and it's going to rain again soon tonight.
I saw that there'd been a few cuts - Maybe just so they could get in and out of the house. I wonder if the "experts" they had there before did that pissy-little bit of work...The job needs equipment - possibly a crane - not "evenings and weekends tree service".
No other trees in the area suffered that kind of damage. Those two were an "accident" waiting to happen.
I hope nobody got hurt.
The temptation to stop and say "told you so" is there but not overwhelming. I'll resist it but...
Don't know, I'd assumed the reporter got the number from the village, but it could be a SWAG, for all I know.
My bro-in-law lives near there, so I may be headed up that way within the next week or two, I'll try to take a look if I find myself over there.
Either way, finding the balance point between the interests of the community vs those of a property owner is an interesting challenge, to say the least. As I said, assuming no village ordinances are being violated, I'd vote in favor of the property owner.
Who's number is that? Who counted and what did they count?
Whenever I run into tree removal ordinances I wonder the framers of that ordinance consider a "tree"? Often the ordinance just says "tree". NOT mature,(desirable-species)trees. A 6 year old box elder growing in a crack in the concrete between a building and a sidewalk is a tree and may require the city forester's approval (and an inspection fee) to remove. In theory...In practice? My first question when a tree is covered under ordinance is "How well do you get along with your neighbors?"
To get back to the very original post..to judge that "this" is the value of "a tree" is simplistic,misleading and just plain false. Nobody with any real knowledge of arborculture would have made that statement. It's like saying that every business in a community has "X" value to that community - whether it be a porn shop,tavern,grocery store or manufacturing plant... Or buckthorn,black locust,red oak or choke cherry... Some - a business OR a tree - are in fact a blight on a community,ecosystem or residence. Most may be beneficial but to widely varying degrees.
But...trees can be an emotionally charged issue (as the OP's subsequent posts demonstrated) often with logic just thrown out the window.
"Gail Hodges, president of the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation, said the 400-tree removal would be the largest in the city’s history.
“Clear-cutting and replanting an 8.5-acre site and waiting 100 or more years for replacement trees to grow does not meet the requirements of the city’s tree ordinance,” she said..."
If the proposal gets council’s stamp of approval, it would then need to be given the go-ahead from the Lake Forest Building Review Board and Historic Preservation Commission, which would vote on the razing of a historic 1930 “country house” mansion on the property.
“This has a long way to go further,” Plan Commission Chairman Michael Ley said.
"Known as the David C. Everitt Estate, the Tudor revival home — which includes a coach house and a shed — was named an historic landmark by Lake Forest in 2003. It is currently used as office space.
"...more painful is the prospect of the tree removal, which is a sore subject for many Lake Forest residents.
"In 1987, the actor known as Mr. T cut down more than 100 oak trees on his property in a move that caused quite an uproar at the time for residents of the city that touts itself as a “Tree City USA.” Lake Forest has earned the distinction, given out by the Arbor Day Foundation, for 33 years in a row.
That Mr. T incident, which residents are cautioning city officials against repeating on a larger scale, led Lake Forest to put more stringent rules in place for tree preservation.
While Shiner Group said it plans to replant about 300 trees in areas around the property, some residents maintained that wasn’t enough of a concession."
So... An interesting situation, to be sure. Both positions have a high degree of validity, IMO; I can see why Lake Forest residents feel invested in the community's tree tradition, OTOH, I can also appreciate the right of property owners to manage their property as they see fit, as long as what they're doing doesn't violate village ordinances.
As a sitting member of a local city council, I would encourage the property owner to consider any and all alternatives to clear-cutting the site. (Lake Forest Tree Preservation "rules" are quite specific with respect to what constitutes "Tree Preservation"); if it can be demonstrated that Whole Foods plans violates those guidelines, the Village can and should clearly communicate which portions of the property owners tree removal plan are subject to modification. Once the property owner's plan meets the village's requirements, I would vote in favor of the property owner moving forward with their plans.
What say youse?