Commission Impossible

I like trees, and I recently planted four, but at the same time I've had to remove a couple of trees from my home and business property. In the latter case, the City did the work because they agreed with me that the tree was unsafe and posed a public hazard.

This tree ordinance thing is taking on overtones of the abortion battle, except that the roles seem to be reversed, with the "right to life" being on the left. Lately, it seems that meadowfoam, garter snake habitat (see Sundays letters to the editor) and beetle habitat Elderberry bushes are more important than the rights and lives of people.

Case in point - how many people have died at the Highways 70/149/99 interchanges in the 10+ years that environmentalists have placed roadblocks in front of that project? I remember one little boy, about two years ago, who died when the car he and his mom were riding in was broadsided by a car on 70 as she turned onto 149. If the road had been improved on schedule, that never would have happened.

Was that worth 10 years of delay to protect some Meadowfoam and beavers? I think not. Meadowfoam is being grown in quantities at reserves near Vina and commercially in Oregon, and the Limnanthes Flococcus Californica aka Butte County Meadowfoam can just as easily be grown with it. Beavers relocate with ease too. Anybody who tells you otherwise is just pushing an agenda.

Now we have the City saying there's a delay in authorizing a bid to fix drainage problems for a man made stromwater retention basin near south Chico street Paseo Campaneros that becomes a West Nile hotspot. Two people have died on that street from West Nile in the past year...yet the "garter snake habitat" aka man-made retention basin gets hands-off priority according to what the city said recently.

It's lunacy and its morally wrong. Public health, be it an accident prone intersection or a festering man-made mosquito pool should always trump protecting bugs, plants, and the occasional beaver.

Environmentalists digging in their heels on this only hurts their cause, because it makes them look unreasonable, and maybe they are. But most people I know, on either side of the political spectrum actually want to protect the environment, me included, but they want to protect their children and grandparents more.

Making them choose through obstruction is a no-win polarizating situation. We CAN have it both ways.

In the case of trees, the folks pushing this strengthened law act as if the tree, once cut down, could never be replaced. We're not talking giant Redwoods here...more like Dogwoods and Pines, available at Home Depot.

Compromise folks...compromise.

Wouldn't this ordinance discourage people from planting trees on their private property?

Why would I plant a tree on my property if it meant that I would have to get a permit to take care of it?

I am looking for ways to make my life easier, not more bureaucratic.

Trees are nice, but not worth the hassle.

TJ,

Good point.

There's also the reduction in property value that comes with stripping the "tree value" from a property.

If you have the option of purchasing two identical homes, one where you own the trees, and the other where you're responsible for them, but don't really own them, quite a few people would opt for the "ownership" plan.

Just that hypothetical concept tells me that the expanded ordinance would be detrimental to property values.

Lon

Anthony,

This tree ordinance thing is taking on overtones of the abortion battle, except that the roles seem to be reversed, with the "right to life" being on the left.

There are other parallels which could be made to the abortion debate. Some pro-choicers say that making abortion illegal has a greater negative effect on the poor who can't afford to raise children. Some pro-lifers say that regardless of the effect on specific groups it's for the greater social good that abortions be banned, and a greater value should be placed on a living fetus.

Homeowners who can't afford to prune and maintain their trees might find themsleves on the wrong side of the permit process. It's not well-heeled home owners that find tree maintenance overly costly. An expanded ordinance would make it more costly to the poor-middle income to upgrade their homes.

Some people feel that trees have souls just like humans and for the greater social good should not be removed. In order to achieve this effect they want to ban our "choice".

Of course the differences in the abortion debate are pretty distinct. On one hand we're talking about a human being, and on the other hand we're talking about a plant.

Lon

Thank you Lon and Anthony for bringing these points to the forefront! Not only is this ordinance placing unrealistic expectations on the homeowners, but there is no proposal for funding for this enormous increase in paperwork and trafficking that would have to be monitored by the Urban Foresters office. There are many parts of this proposal that would cost the City hundreds of thousands of dollars to implement and maintain. Are we going to take money from the school district, or from the police department or the fire department? Whose overstretched budget will have to alleviate some weight to help people monitor the trees? Some other questions the proposal brings to my mind: What is a “city-certified arborist” and who is going to perform and monitor that training? Will the private sector of tree companies have to adherer to another standard? Will this ordinance be applicable only to tree removal, or are we going to have limitations on our tree trimming as well?

And, while we are comparing trees to humans, trees have a finite lifespan – just like humans. They do not live forever, and although if properly maintained they can live for hundreds of years, this is rarely the case in urban landscaping, which is not a trees natural habitat. Trees die, and when they are in the vicinity of structures, cars, or people, they need to be removed to prevent damage. This is not a process that should be slowed down due to more red tape.

One of the greatest nemeses to trees in the urban setting is grass. Grass competes with trees for nutrients and water from the soil. Trees planted in grass often receive too much water, making them susceptible to Oak Root fungus, Verticillim Wilt, and Iron Chlorosis. All these disease are capable of killing trees quickly and turning them into potentially hazardous lawn decorations.

I have to opportunity to work with many municipalities in the area of tree work, and I am familiar with many ordinances other communities have adopted. This one is simply ridiculous! I propose that TreeAction take a look at the ordinances other communities with a plethora of trees have adopted (i.e. Paradise, Magalia, Red Bluff, etc.) and see what is working for them.

Meagan,

I can't add much to that, so I won't.

Lon

I thank Lou Glazner for the publicity he gives our ideas for a new tree ordinance, but not for his caricature of our TreeAction website (www.treeaction.org).

Of course he is joking, but it is a pity he and his contributors could not resist the cheap shots. Nobody can seriously equate the development of a tree ordinance with abortion. And ridiculing a quite moderate and sensible plan to stop developers clearing building sites of trees by pairing it with permits for growing lawns and shrubs just denigrates without reason. If this is the contentious environment he wants, his suggestion of a Lon Glazner control ordinance doesn’t seem out of place.

The TreeAction website quite openly sets out to explore and discuss with the public the alternatives for the extension of the existing tree ordinance. In fact, some contributors like Bill and Nancy Knudsen have made critical, sensible and also positive contributions. Their criticisms are also answered by the equally balanced, sensible views of Lin Jensen and others. We all have the right to say our piece, but it would be more helpful if comments (including mine) were constructive.

Is it fair to ask if the public interest is not best served by saving trees and controlling tree removal? Or are those interests trumped by Mr. Glazner’s? Is what is good for him good for you and me? Not surprisingly, his blog attracts the like-minded. But this is a democracy, so we all have a right to speak.

THE FACTS
1. I believe that California is at a tipping point where sensible actions are being taken to support sustainability: in this case, by protecting the urban forest and increasing the tree cover to counterbalance the rapid buildup of pollution. Pollution caused by more people, animals, cars, houses, roads, etc. and resulting in the heat gain we seem to be experiencing.
2. Chico must be 5 times the size it was 50 years ago. Have we five times as many trees? No. This is not an issue that can be written off as “being aligned with the local political left.” All sides of the responsible, educated political spectrum supported the ordinance.
3. The only things I know that grow on land, can eat sunshine, absorb CO2 and generate the oxygen we all need to breathe are trees. Large trees are many times more effective than small ones, and they need protection from chainsaw-wielding “experts” who care more about their own rights than about our community’s health or welfare.
4. Trees are stuck where they are planted and cannot move out of the way of bad owners (unfortunately), so they need the best protection we can give them.
5. A tree ordinance extended to homeowners will allow property owners to remove trees when necessary and prune them to make them safe if they are dangerous, but not just for fun or in ignorance of their importance to us all.

In many other cities, they protect all trees, whether on private land or not, but apparently in Chico, the City of Trees, we can’t get together to do the right thing, because of the shortsighted belief of a minority that “it’s my property, so I can do what I like.” If each of us gives up a little in the interests of everyone, Chico will be more beautiful, and a better, ‘cooler’ place.

Alan,

First, thank you for posting, it's too bad you think I took "cheap shots". I just really, really, disagree with you. I'd be happy to meet with you to talk about your ordinance. But in the short term I can describe exactly where my problem is with your proposal, and that is in section 5 above.

5. A tree ordinance extended to homeowners will allow property owners to remove trees when necessary and prune them to make them safe if they are dangerous, but not just for fun or in ignorance of their importance to us all.

This specific suggestion takes my rights to my private property away. Couching it in terms of "saving trees from developers" is disingenuous. It is already well within the capacity of the city planning apparatus to protect trees during development planning.

Your suggestion is that homeowners should lose the right to modify their private property at will. I simply, vehemently, disagree with your position.

What you should say is that…

5. A tree ordinance extended to homeowners will allow property owners to remove trees when Alan Gair agrees it is necessary and prune them to make them safe if they are dangerous, but not just for fun or in ignorance of their importance to Alan Gair.

I would support an expanded tree ordinance that did some of the things you want to do, as long as homeowners are allowed to opt in voluntarily. Then you could spend as much time as you want convincing people that their property is best managed by the City of Chico, and my private property rights would remain intact. If I'm truly in the minority then you should support that reasonable compromise.

Personally, I would like to see the City of Chico take care of the trees they already own.

You wrote...

No. This is not an issue that can be written off as “being aligned with the local political left.” All sides of the responsible, educated political spectrum supported the ordinance.

Just for clarification, I was not speaking of the previous tree ordinance. And I did not see anything on your web site that either suggested that all previous tree ordinance supporters also supported this effort, or that listed a bipartisan effort regarding this effort to change the ordinance.

Who are your supporters that advocate taking my private property rights?

Lon

"...If each of us gives up a little in the interests of everyone..."

Yea, we already did that. We all compromised to create the tree ordinance that we currently have.

Now, you want more.

More government intervention in peoples lives.

We have one planning commissioner who wants more 1000 square foot homes wedged into 4000 square foot lots. The liberal drive for high density human containment have created lots that can not support our native large trees. This is the root cause of the tipping point to which you refer.

I have lived, on and off, in this area for more than 40 years. While I have seen growth that sadly displaced some of nature’s special areas, I have also witnessed the expansion of, not the reduction of Chico’s Urban Forest.

Take a drive up Highway 32 to Hog Springs and look back on the Community of Chico! Even with binoculars it is difficult to see the City thru the trees. A clear indication that the community does an excellent job of creating urban forest where none previously existed, and that this community cares for its trees in a reasonable manner.

And horrors of horrors, they did it without the oversight of a team of bureaucrats!

I've read the treeaction goals, and believe that they seek to misallocate scarce and valuable city resources to create yet another bureaucracy that the community does not need, nor want. The vast majority of our citizens are bright, reasonable, responsible people who do not need governmental oversight and permission to care for their property.

As an example, 9 years ago I purchased a 1 acre lot near City Limits and built a home (minimum home lot size in the county where sewer is unavailable). In that time we have planted more than 80 small, medium, and large tree types. Including some native varieties. In the coming decades I fully expect to do heavy pruning, and perhaps some tree removal as the trees develop. I sincerely believe that I, like all my fellow free citizens of the area are perfectly able to do so in a responsible manner, and that no government intervention is required. I do not need some bureaucrat to agree that it is "necessary" and "allow" me to prune or remove my own trees.

Yes, we have seen some abuses, but, I'm not ready to sign away personal property rights, and fly in the face of our consitution to create the tree czar of Chico and an expensive tree bureaucracy entorage...

Particularly at this moment as the city struggles to maintain reasonable levels of police and fire protection.

Lon:
Thank you for your reply. Perhaps it would be good to meet and build some bridges.
If you look at the comments on the TreeAction site you will find a discussion, not a totalitarian statement. It seems to be such a hot button topic that opponents can't even hear or read what is actually said.
We have just finished a meeting between developers, plant experts, arborists, wildlife enthusiasts and home owners-a cross section of the community and it wrestled with the topics you are so hot under the collar about.
We are looking for areas of agreement not focussing on disagreements. We are developing a draft ordinance to put before the citizens of Chico and their representatives. We are not 'cut and dryed' we are in formative stage.
I invite you to go on our website and tell us what elements you think would acceptably strengthen the ordinance. Then we should meet and discuss them. You will find that we are not stealing your private property rights but trying to defend one of Chico's main assets-its urban forest. Suggest a time and place.

Alan

I'm of several minds on the matter. Inasmuch as I consider most political activity to be a sporting proposition, I can't say that I have much confidence that this proposal will be approved.

Americans are an obstinate lot, whatever other merits may obtain, and they are possessed of a jealous sovereignty. You'll get this tree (or child, or gun) when you pry it from my cold dead fingers, etc.

From a European perspective, Mr. Gair's proposal is imminently sensible; common good is served, beautiful and beneficial living things are preserved, no one harmed, etc., let a thousand blessings, etc.

I also confess to a certain indifference to this amendment. There are signs all over downtown Chico prohibiting the riding of skateboards and bikes on the sidewalks. I'm sure the code enforcement department will be delighted with tree duty. There is the provision for lots of ad-hoc "busybody committees" ratting out their noncompliant neighbors, but inasmuch as the noncompliance is the cutting of a tree, that ship will have sailed long before the case is dropped on account of apathy.

I also have to ask whether the City of Trees is at any risk of being considered insufficiently forested. I just don't think there are a lot of people who are willfully destroying substantial trees, and I don't really believe that the future livability of Chico, the planet, and beyond is significantly dependent on approving this proposal. Whatever trees we may lose to ignorance, arrogance, or avarice, there's still no meaningful shortage of them. I'm fighting back the privets on my lot; nature is nothing if not fecund. Really, you can't turn your back on it.

There will never be enough biota on the planet to mitigate the CO2 we are producing. Absorbsion is not a strategy.

I'm not unsympathetic to the sentiment. I'm an old unreconstructed druid at heart, and I've always loved forests and trees. For many of the trees in this proposal, ownership is a serial thing. It's the same way with parrots. But whatever immanent grace I may imbue in trees, they are, no less than we, subject to capricious fate. Mr. Gair's proposition, that we as a community revere our urban forest by coming together to do something mostly symbolic, largely unenforceable, and probably not more harmful than all the wanton waste I've heard so little of until now, seems benignant and well-intentioned enough. But it suffers the twin disadvantages of being both politically volatile and producing no meaningful or measurable ROI. It doesn't pass the "what's in it for me?" test.

Bringing a community together through legislation rarely works, and invariably produces unintended consequences. However, I suspect we'll dodge that bullet, but perhaps the community will end up better informed, and perhaps even become better custodians of our proprietary flora as a result of the deliberation. Nevertheless, I can't help but suspect that the policy and staff community have more compelling demands on their attention.

Or perhaps it is a tribute to our good fortune as a community that we have the time and resources to devote to outrage over private woodcutting. In many ways, we are truly blessed.

Well, I appreciate all of the comments. Last night in thinking over this topic I had a wide range of thoughts, many mirrored by Mark's comments.

From my perspective the line drawn around residential property I own is not one that I want breeched for "worried neighbors" or code enforcers. But I differentiate between residential property, the greatest asset most Americans will ever own, and new developments that can dramatically impact surrounding homeowners. That doesn't mean I support changing the ordinance for developers, just that I understand that large developments should be planned with consideration for the wider community. I believe that is already occurring.

I have read through the Tree Action web site, and think I treated it fairly, for example I wrote...

The argument over private property rights is one Tree Action covers on its own web site. It's good that they don't shy away from the topic. My concern is that few Chicoans will pay attention to the discussion of expanding the Tree Ordinance and it will fly under the radar to implementation.

Much of my post was taken directly from the web site, and my "editorializing" was seperated from other content. But I will again review the site, and again review the existing Tree Ordinance, and try to meet with Alan Gair to discuss his ideas.

Finally, any plan that takes decision making from homeowners, or costs them more money, is one that I think should be resisted.

Lon

I concede that strong views, and an antisocial attachment to private property rights has fueled the unreasonable concern of those with a wildwest attitude that "what's yours is mine, and what's mine's my own." and I will explain when I can find my gun.
They have their rights but we also have ours.

Your "out of my dead hands quote" says it all to me. We are today I believe a more civil society, and the political shifts that are now being brought about by that kind of polarising attitude will hopefully be its undoing at the next election.

It is dificult to come to terms with that sort of extremism and totalitarian approach-"I'm right and you are wrong, and if you don't agree with me then you are a Nazi liberal.

As you will see on our website www.treeaction.org we have been flexible and taken input pro and con about the ordinance-that is what our discussion was about. Why did you not move out from the comfort of your blog and join it? You still could.

In fact as a concession we have agreed that it is unrewarding to meet head on such embedded and inflexible opposition, so we have modified our proposals to take trees on property with single family homes out of our ordinance. You win.
I hope that makes you happy and over time I hope to meet the 100,000 enlightened and ecologically aware Chico area residents who you say know and love trees, and will only take them down when they become inconvienient.

Hopefully you will undertake to keep the chain saw wielding gangs of tree trimmers and the few marauding deviants you acknowledge under control.

In the meantime we will continue to enrol those thousands with more moderate and openminded views to support our ordinance.

When do we meet for the discussion I asked for and you promised?

Alan Gair for TreeAction.

Hmmm, interesting approach.

Convince the opponents to join the "open minded" by calling them names and degrading their opinions.

Good luck with that.