Removing poplar trees on city land

[itsme]

We live with a greenbelt in back of us (I guess it is city-owned… it is NOT private property). There are ever-increasing numbers of poplar/alders (not sure of what kind… the tall, medium-thin kind you see on picturesque farm land for wind breaks) that keep growing, multiplying and therefore blocking our view (and the many neighbors’ as well). There is no purpose for these trees; they must have just seeded there a long time ago. Is there some way to contact the city to remove them, or cut them or do we have some way we can band together as a neighborhood and cut/trim them? I don’t like needlessly cutting trees, but we did pay for a view that we are losing to these trees.

Share This

[The Velvet Bulldog]

Hi itsme:

I may be playing Devil’s Advocate here (and I’m NOT trying to be contentious at all) but I’d like to make one comment and want to ask just a couple of questions.

When you say, “There is no purpose for these trees” I get that you may be coming from a place of landscaping or agricultural purpose? These particular trees actually create habitat for birds, and help our overall tree canopy in Seattle, which has been declining for years.

So, to my question–you specifically moved to an area with a greenbelt, so you obviously have an appreciation for the nature and the ecosystem represented there–is that right? Therefore, is there some way to think of the trees as PART of the view, and part of the ecosystem rather than thinking of them as nuisance view-blockers?

Like I said, I’m not trying to be snarky, I’m genuinely interested in your issue.

Share This

[SeattlePorcupine]

It is public property, not your property. If there was a mountain blocking your view would you advocate blowing up the mountain? If those trees are big enough to block your view then I am guessing they didn’t just spring up overnight, but over a course of many, many years. Also, in regards to your comment “there is no purpose for these trees”, aside from the benefits of producing oxygen and helping to clean the air, they also aid in preventing soil erosion which benefits everyone who lives or drives near the green belt. I probably wouldn’t lead with the “no purpose” comment when you talk to the city arborist.

Share This

[itsme]

Ok, I do need to clarify, and should have been more sensitive when I said “they have no purpose.” Of course, they have a purpose for birds, oxygen, etc.

We live on a bluff, if that is more specific. So, we’re not looking at a beltway of greenery, but at backyard that ends with a cliff that now has trees in front (or in back — on the opposite side of our yard) of it.

There are plenty of bushes and plants, berries and other oxygen-generating, lower-lying (i.e. shorter, not lower in terms of status) living things on the hillside that are beneficial to all life and holding up the hill. There are also many, many trees in all of our yards, with plenty of bird houses, bird feeders, bird-friendly flowers, bird baths, etc.

These trees were not here when we bought the property many years ago. If there were a mountain here blocking the view when we bought the property, we would not have bought it. If a mountain springs up tomorrow, I guess we’d be more worried as to why a mountain suddenly sprung up out of nowhere. If the trees were here and as thick as they are now when we bought the property, we may not have bought it without seeing if something could be done about their height.

I never said it was our property — I said it was public property. You all went to my poorly phrased “no purpose for the trees” rather than offer perhaps some workable solution that might keep the trees (trimming perhaps?) and let us enjoy the view that we searched and saved a lot to get many years ago (again, the trees were not there when we bought the property — we looked over the bluff — and have popped up in sight in the last few years. We have had family health issues and other concerns that have kept us from this during that time).

A simple answer like “call the city arborist” would have sufficed… I simply didn’t know where to start.

Share This

[anonyme]

It’s been said so many times here, but I guess it bears repeating:

A tree IS a view.

“There are plenty of bushes and plants, berries and other oxygen-generating, lower-lying (i.e. shorter, not lower in terms of status) living things on the hillside that are beneficial to all life and holding up the hill. There are also many, many trees in all of our yards, with plenty of bird houses, bird feeders, bird-friendly flowers, bird baths, etc.”

It is clear from these comments that the writer has absolutely no concept of what constitutes an ecosystem outside of the urban construct. To answer the question, it is illegal to cut, trim or otherwise tamper with these trees. It never fails to amaze me that people can live in (or move to) one of the few areas in the world known for it’s majestic trees – and then want to chop them down for a “view” of something else that they have convinced themselves has more intrinsic value.

I hear there are great views outside Las Vegas.

Share This

[shed22]

itsme . . . I understand and appreciate your want of the view from your property. Seattle is very tree friendly, both in personal views and in public policy. I imagine this could be a tough climb.

I don’t know if this will help in your situation: http://www.seattle.gov/parks/Publications/policy/treepolicy.pdf

There is heavy mention of contacting the Senior Urban Forester, and includes a contact phone number at the end.

I hope it all works out.

Share This

[The Velvet Bulldog]

Go here:

http://www.seattle.gov/trees/regulations.htm

and click on the “Who to Call” tab. You’ll get some direction regarding what can happen with trees on public property.

I brought up the idea of getting used to the trees as part of the view because my guess (and it’s just a guess, I don’t know Seattle’s tree rules inside and out) is that the trees may fall under a tree protection regulation. But yes, they may also be able to send out an Arborist.

I hope you’ll be able to find a satisfactory outcome.

Share This

[SeattlePorcupine]

I don’t know if this would exactly fall under the City Arborist of Seattle, but his name is Nolan Rundquist and his contact information (including email) can be found at http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/arborist.htm. He helped my family when we got a permit to plant trees in our planting strips and was very nice, responsive and helpful. I will tell you that we had originally planned to plant “small trees” on our strips, but he encouraged us to plant larger trees as they are much more beneficial to the city from an environmental standpoint. I only state this because I don’t know that your argument about the environmental benefits of bushes and plants will carry much favor with him, but that is something he would be very much qualified to discuss, as I certainly am not. He was very nice, so I encourage you to drop him an email. As to the value of trees, my wife and I choose to live in this state because of the outdoor beauty and very much appreciate the emphasis the city puts on protecting that aspect of the area. Hopefully you will find a solution that meets your needs but is still fitting with one of the greatest features this city has.

Share This

[itsme]

Thank you to all who provided helpful answers.

To further clarify: We bought a view of Puget Sound (and, yes, there are many other glorious views around – parks, greenbelts, artwork, cityscape, kids playing, pets cavorting, — a garden is a wonderful view, a vegetable garden is beautiful to look at, a mural is terrific, etc., beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so please, let’s not nit-pick on the wording). Yes, to us, Puget Sound is beautiful and does have intrinsic value.

And, we do appreciate the entire ecosystem, and have planted native plants friendly to bees, birds, etc. We like trees a lot. I felt bad when we had to get rid of a diseased tree that was beyond hope (and yes, a professional and licensed arborist gave us the grim news).

I’m not talking about “a tree” or a few interspersed trees. We are now getting close to a 20-30 foot wide wall of trees (that’s just in back of our yard… they go on around the hillside behind others’ yards) and, while the trees are beautiful themselves, they are walling out the beauty of Puget Sound and the occasional whale and other wildlife that are also valuable in the ecosystem.

So, the view of what we bought is getting replaced by a wall of trees – not a few trees that become part of the landscape – they are becoming the sole landscape in back of our yard. And, the sides of our yards are surrounded by trees, and tall ones, so there are plenty of trees.

They have cropped up in our view line – i.e., now rising some 20 feet or more above the bluff line — in the last four years or so (as I already said, we had family health issues, so this did not take any priority and we’re just now getting around to seeing if there is some workable solution).

If you liked looking at something through your yard that was free and clear when you bought the property (more specifically, bought the property particularly for that view), and it is now being blocked (not just diminished), would you not try to find some workable solution so you could have the view of what you love? Am I wrong to want to see Puget Sound and the land beyond?

Trimming, thinning, all are options, and I am sure we are not the first to inquire about this. Having some way for the trees and our view to co-exist would be perfect, but pretty soon, our view of the Sound will be by the wayside.

Thank you to those who provided helpful answers – they are VERY helpful leads and we’ll talk with them and see what, if anything, the city can do.

To those who portray me as some kind of tree-hater and environment enemy, think again based upon what I’ve said above. I should have just said “who do I call at the city about city-owned trees?” I said my original post was poorly worded, and I’ve probably dug a large hole here to explain myself. Yes, Velvet Bulldog, you were correct when you asked if I meant from a landscaping perspective (that is what I meant), and I should have included the words “legal way” when referring to what the neighborhood could do.

But, again, thank you to those (most of you) who provided the leads and who took a breath before shooting an arrow at me.

Share This

[itsme]

oh, anonyme, I grew up in the Rockies. Not too urban, and pretty majestic trees.

Share This

[Author]

Posts