“Flower Houses” tree tussle: Condo association responds

| Environment | Neighborhoods | West Seattle news

(photo courtesy Alma Taylor-Smyth, who lives in one of the “flower houses”)
Followup to yesterday’s story about the Alki Ave “Flower Houses” evergreen tree and the neighboring condo owners’ plan to trim it — which is getting attention in citywide media today (two TV stations and one newspaper counted so far) — the condos’ homeowners association has posted this response:

Hi, Iâ€™m Wendy, the president of the 1402 Condo Association. Iâ€™d like to make a comment in response to the tree trimming controversy. We have never talked about cutting down the tree, topping it off, or trimming it back so that it would die. In fact, we are willing to give up some of our view so that it can grow. We bought our units having been told by Randie that we had unblockable and wireless views, which is no longer the case for the lower units.

Since the tree has grown to this size in the last four years, the arborists have said that the tree could be blown down in a wind stormâ€“on our building, her house, or the cars below. The root system is beginning to buckle the sidewalk, and will eventually pose a problem for the walkers.

Over the last three years, we have offered to move the tree to the back, which is no longer possible, and replace with a different tree, but Randie refused.

Recently, we tried to meet with Randie to discuss and come up with a solution that would work for both of us, and she refused. We have shared our arboristâ€™s report as well as the legal research with her and her attorney, which we did not have to do.

It is our sincere desire to meet with her and find an amicable resolution.
– 1402 Homeowners Association

We have messages out to those who originally contacted us, seeking a response. 6:21 PM UPDATE: We have heard back from Randie Stone:

Here is the first paragraph of a letter that was left on my front door just prior to the Fourth of July weekend:

Dear Randie:

On behalf of the 1402 Alki HOA I’d like to give you the heads up that we will be trimming the limbs and foliage of the two Douglas Fir trees that encroach our property line as early as Monday, July 7, 2008. Although we are not legally required to do so, we are extending the courtesy of advance notice in hopes that we will be able to maintain a friendly, neighborly relationship.

My only goal is to maintain the health and integrity of my tree which was there before the condo was built. The safety of my tree was my only concern.

Please let the record show that I am acting as a private citizen and protecting my rights as a private citizen.

Randie Stone

Al Ki July 10, 2008 (4:36 pm)

I guess Randie doesn’t want to be the listing agent when current residents of 1402 decide to sell their units….

dis July 10, 2008 (4:59 pm)

Mrs. Randy Stone the real estate agent says in the Seattle Times article that “the condo took away so much of my light, so much of my sun,” but it looks like that tree is casting her house in darkness, not the condo. Maybe the RE business is down. No publicity is bad publicity. What irony to see a condo real estate agent taking on her (potential) clients and revealing the charade of advertising “unblockable views.”

J July 10, 2008 (5:02 pm)

Jeez, what’s with some people acting like trees are natural and should be allowed to grow? I don’t get it. If people want to see nature then they should just move. That’s MY CONCRETE SLAB SIDEWALK that tree is growing under. Doesn’t it have any respect for MY THINGS? Damn trees sucking up all the sunlight and CO2! I COULD USE THAT C02! And this isn’t to mention all the creepy wild animals, like birds, that the tree attracts. It’s a hazard and an insult to humanity.

The main reason I hate trees is because they are green, and green is the color of vile putrescence. One word: Yuk.

beachdrivegirl July 10, 2008 (5:11 pm)

Thank you Wendy, it realy is great to here from reasonable people out there! I had assumed the best in you all in regards to the situation and it sounds like i was doing the right thing! :)

BGH July 10, 2008 (5:35 pm)

Cut the tree down and plant VERY tall bamboo. Bamboo can grow 50 feet in a 2 foot wide spot.

grr July 10, 2008 (5:45 pm)

pave the planet.

Bob Loblaw July 10, 2008 (6:14 pm)

Nuke the whales

Random July 10, 2008 (6:20 pm)

Sounds like they tried to be reasonable about the whole thing. Personally I think the spot the tree is growing in is much to small for that type of tree and the confined space with cause problems for the tree as it grows. As much as I like trees I think it would be more ascetically pleasing to replace that particular tree with a smaller one that better compliments the flowers.

Scott July 10, 2008 (6:45 pm)

Hang in there Randie! I’m sure Condo development would just love to add 5 stories of lifeless cement on top of those beautiful houses…

sean July 10, 2008 (7:06 pm)

Did the arborist the 1402 Alki HOA hire have an interest in seeing the tree taken down? That is was it a consultation from a Tree Service who makes their money taking down trees?
Was the arborist certified in the Tree Risk Assessor method required for any tree risk assessment in the city of Seattle?
Just wondering as someone who deals with tree risk assessments every day. To me that tree looks like low risk and the arborist was being subjective to the needs of the HOA.

sean July 10, 2008 (7:14 pm)

Oh yeah and some free legal advice. The 1402 does have the right to for self taking of anything over their property line. However, they are not allowed to perform irrevocable harm to the tree in that it causes the tree to die. If the tree dies from 1402’s actions the tree’s owner is allowed compensation for the lost value.

Christopher Boffoli July 10, 2008 (7:53 pm)

I’m curious as to how what is essentially a dispute between neighbors has become a media event. It seems to me that anyone who approached the newspaper about tree cutting would normally be ignored. I wonder what exactly it is about this case (lack of news during a slow summer?) that has had the media drooling.

BGH July 10, 2008 (8:09 pm)

lots of bamboo will do.

Brian July 10, 2008 (8:37 pm)

Maybe the Seattle Times and KIng 5 did the story because they think Randie is selling condos with views that are “unblockable” and now is blocking the very views she made money selling. It sounds like the association has been very reasonable – and it sounds like they have the right to trim the tree. So what else could the story be about other than bait and switch? Seems like Randie likes to have her cake and eat it too. Go Obama!

Trisket July 10, 2008 (8:46 pm)

Has anyone ever offered Randie Stone $$$… after all she’s is a real estate agent…

WSB July 10, 2008 (8:46 pm)

Sure, it’s a slow news week so far, but speaking both as a neighborhood-news site operator and as a former “old media” manager, this story is a slam dunk by any standard. For one, the “flower houses” are local landmarks. For two, little cottages vs. big condos (never mind the details) are news in a city grappling with growth and change – witness the Edith Macefield coverage in Ballard (and before her, the person who held out for some time in a similar situation in front of a condo building right here on the West Seattle waterfront). And people trying to “save” a tree also are news, even if they’re not a fairly prominent local citizen (I was reminded in an e-mail exchange about the woman who had an Alki tree sit-in a couple years ago). The Times has even actually belatedly hauled out their seldom-deployed comment feature (it came up on a Google News Search a couple hours ago, more than 12 hours after they posted their version of the story with no place for reader comments), seeing how much talk this has stirred up. Hasn’t been that long since the last tree-cutting controversy just down the road brought out the citywide media too:
https://westseattleblog.com/blog/?p=6388

Babs July 10, 2008 (9:25 pm)

“Gawd help us if some homeless person with a coyote as a pal sits down under that tree with a plastic cup they poured their bottle water into which they took out of a plastic bag……” I say trim the tree some, see how it looks and make it work for now so both parties are happy and THE TREE (Has anyone asked the tree?) – yes the tree is getting big but dang – that is one proud beauty of a tree.

Pokey July 10, 2008 (10:05 pm)

For me, this case raises a bigger issue, especially in view properties. I truly love trees of all kinds, but they can also be the cause of much neighborhood tension, controversy, and amazingly childish behavior on the part of everyone involved.
.
Of course, the circumstances mean a lot. If I move onto a property with large trees in the view, I really have no gripe. If a tree is surpassing the property line, sorry, it needs to be trimmed or replaced with a smaller one or at least a compromise should be worked out among the owners.
.
My big gripe is people who unthinkingly just stick any old tree or plant into the ground and forget about it. Like a neighbor who brought back a hemlock cutting from a memorable trip to the mountains that now inhibits the view of her neighbors who were there long before this tree. She too, refuses to have it topped or trimmed after many reasonable requests. Every several years, my neighbors and I pay to have certain trees topped in front of us, many that were planted after we moved in with no regard to how tall they would get. Fortunately, our neighbors are all too willing to allow us to do this, or else they could make a big stink and have the tree patrol out here.
.
I certainly do not favor a nanny state which we seem to turning into, but it would be a nice consideration to have something in the city codes about the circumstances and control of the growth of trees to avoid silly arguments such as this one, or could head off a major tree cut such as the one by the judge in Magnolia a few years back or the one in West Seattle last year.
.
Technically, someone could build a house to height code, then plant 20 fast growing maples around it that could completely obstruct neighbors views within a few years and there really isn’t anything legally that could be done about it.

Chris July 10, 2008 (10:15 pm)

I’m not sure I’d have a lot of trust in buying a condo from Randie. She sells them – she should know condo owner’s rights.
We deal with this in our neighborhood with our very large cherry tree and work with our neighbors to trim it annually to be good neighbors. Views and trees – a continual issue. Good luck 1402! Hope you are successful.

Stacy July 10, 2008 (11:03 pm)

I think I can say something to cool this discussion down a little.
.
First of all, full disclosure: I’m one of the people — there were originally six of us — who put out the basket of ribbons saying “Our Community Loves These Trees”. (Randie wasn’t involved, although we asked her permission before putting them on her property.)
.
I’m posting because I think the message of the ribbons has been misunderstood, in which case I’m probably at fault — I came up with the slogan.
.
You see, the ribbons don’t say “Save this tree” or “Make them leave this tree alone” or even “Don’t trim this tree”. They just say “Our Community Loves These Trees”.
.
The reason they’re worded that way is not because I think the people in the condos are monsters who must be stopped, but because I think the opposite — the folks in the condos are probably decent people who value being part of their community and who think of themselves as sharing an interest in the good of their neighborhood. I expect they even think of themselves as people who give something to their community, rather than people who take away from it.
.
The hope behind the ribbons is not that the ribbons will force the condo owners to take a particular course of action. That’s ridiculous, as a bunch of ribbons clearly has no legal weight. They do have the legal right to cut off the branches that are above their property (80% of the tree), leaving the trunk and a foot of dead limbs exposed, and they can do it in the middle of summer when sun-scald will hurt the tree the most. (Of course, they don’t have the right to kill the tree, but then it would be too late.)
.
Our hope is that the ribbons will clearly show the condo owners that the trees in question really are important to their community. We would like them to stop and think about the fact that whatever they do to the trees affects not just themselves and Randie, and not even just the people who live on Alki Avenue, but the tens of thousands of passers-by who admire this particular spot every year. I don’t expect that information will be the sole arbiter of their actions, but if they really do care about the place where they live, it will have considerable weight in whatever arrangement they eventually come to with their neighbor.
.
If you care about the community you live in, it matters to you if your planned actions are going to cause sorrow to lots of your neighbors. If you don’t, well, I guess it doesn’t — but I don’t believe that’s really the case here.
.
So please folks, tone it down. I don’t see the folks in the condos as nature-hating demons, and I don’t see those of us who love the trees as saints. But I do think that when people make plans that would hurt those around them — even if they have a legal right to do so — we should let them know how we feel. Not to coerce, but in the sincere hope that they will allow their virtue, and not just their personal interests, to have an effect on their actions.
.
P.S. A few posters to this blog have either stated or implied that good neigbors should keep their yaps shut. That isn’t a recipe for community; it’s a recipe for the opposite — a situation where not only is no weight given to the common good, but where it’s considered wrong to even express what you feel common good might be. Do any of us really want to live in that world?

Alma July 11, 2008 (12:55 am)

I’m Stacy’s wife, and can’t resist adding a bit more… I guess I was hoping that the ribbons gave the message that although the condo owners have the legal right to make those trees incredibly ugly if they want to, a lot of their friends and neighbors would be disappointed if they did so.
.
I’m just hoping that they can come to an agreement that won’t result in ugly, unhealthy, or dead trees.
.
P.P.P.S. I tried to prune Stacy’s long message, but… well, YOU know… :-)

acemotel July 11, 2008 (1:12 am)

OK now we are supposed to believe “the community” is trying to save a tree on R. Stone’s property? And how did “the community” rally behind this “cause” unbeknownst to the person on whose property it stands? How did “the community” become aware of this important issue? ha ha ha. The longer the story goes on, the more outrageous it becomes. Not a good reflection on real estate agents.

me July 11, 2008 (2:00 am)

I was just wondering, how could 80% of the tree get onto the other side of the property line? Is it growing sideways?

ann July 11, 2008 (7:14 am)

That tree looks out of place anyway. Jeez lady quite being a pain in the a*s.

cami July 11, 2008 (7:50 am)

If you actually take the time to go look at the tree, it’s not blocking an UNBLOCKABLE view. Unblockable view means that nothing can be built in front of the property, across the street. That remains true. If you watched the King 5 clip last night, at the end the camera man pans from the balocony…looking right you see a tree, turning left you see a “SWEEPING view of the Sound and the Olympics”. Perhaps 15% of the Sound view is tree instead. 85% is water and sunsets, ferries and mountains. Odds are that someday, like it our not, another condo will go up in the flower house spots and it won’t be a tree anymore that they are seeing off their balconies, but a six-story wall and new balconies “blocking” their views.

http://www.king5.com/localnews/stories/NW_071008WAB_alki_tree_block_KS.42226ffc.html

Gina July 11, 2008 (8:05 am)

Are the renter tenants of the flower houses “the community?”

What the hey?

I think that if ever a neighbor issue called for an arbitrator, this is it. The flower house tenants think they are helping their landlord. But their actions could possibly cause loss of income in the future. The tenants do not know what was said during sales of the condos, and could cause conflict of interest for the landlord. I would suggest that both parties leave the public arena and go with a private arbitrator before reputations are dragged through the gutter.

This was a matter that was handled correctly to begin with, but has wildly spiraled out of control.

AReader July 11, 2008 (8:09 am)

The tree-owner/lady is a nut. She was on the news last night talking about how “the tree is a part of my family” and whathaveyou.

Trim the tree and move on. This is hardly newsworthy.

CM July 11, 2008 (8:12 am)

Seems just like a sign of the times to me and a story for a slow news day. I’ve got a “flipper” building a (somewhat) legal 2 story addition on top of a house across from me that is taking a significant part of my view away. It’d sure be nice to have a tree instead of this monster, but nobody cares about it, and it sure isn’t going to make the news.

As the builder told me, “Deal with it. Life in the city.”

glocson July 11, 2008 (8:24 am)

I wonder what the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan think of the tree possibly being trimmed…. I bet they would be appalled! Such a brutal,bloody death of a tree. The Iraqi civilians would be grossed-out and horrified to see the cutting begin!
THINK PEOPLE!!!!Get a life Randie Stone!!!

marty July 11, 2008 (11:37 am)

Stacy: I sure like the way you “cool down” a discussion! I’ll bet you put out forest fires with gasoline too!

barb July 11, 2008 (6:08 pm)

glocson, as a member of the military that has had loved ones/friends and the possibility of myself being deployed to wherever I end up going I think the tree story is ridiculous.

me July 11, 2008 (7:10 pm)

Well, maybe it’s not so much about the tree as it is about being forced to do something that you don’t want to do.

The more someone pushes you the more important it becomes to stand your ground, then standing your ground becomes more important than the original issue…

Brian July 11, 2008 (10:09 pm)

i noticed driving home this evening that Randie has removed all her signs and ribbons. What happened to the big crusade? Maybe Randie thought she was going to get some great press coverage and improve her business and instead got called out as Ms. Double Standard!!!! Let’s all focus on bigger things. Go Obama!

acemotel July 11, 2008 (11:36 pm)

If the intent was to increase the customer base (the typical real estate agent agenda), that was a tactical error!

WSB July 11, 2008 (11:50 pm)

who knows, maybe they’ve reached a compromise. no official updates but that’s always a possibility – you can’t assume that the removal of signs/ribbons means “oops, never mind” or capitulation. One of us will be out covering some non-Summer Fest events tomorrow morning and if we can possibly swing by there, we will, to see if we can find out anything.

CT September 27, 2008 (3:04 pm)

Having had very unfortunate dealings with Randie as my west seattle condo “agent”, I would not be surprised her business is down. Just because somebody puts up a lot of signs and seems to be a nice person does not make them a real estate or condo/HOA expert. Cut the darn tree be done with it.

Sorry, comment time is over.