Vanishing Trees: Save the Emerald in our City

[anonyme]

This morning, over the roar of speeding traffic on 35th, came a more dreaded sound – the whine of a chain saw. This sound has become all too common in Arbor Heights in recent years. As a matter of fact, I think the neighborhood might soon be renamed ‘Flatbush’and Seattle, long known as ‘The Emerald City’ should more appropriately be renamed ‘Smaug’.

I’m referring to the ongoing assault on trees, especially the big conifers that are native to this area. The sound referred to above was that of a healthy, decades old,50 ft. Western Red Cedar meeting its demise. It was the only big tree on a large property, well clear of power lines. This kind of wanton destruction is inexcusable.

It is a fact that more than 70% of Seattle’s urban tree cover has been lost in the last 20 years, yet the devastation continues unabated. Construction and development are largely to blame, but homeowners are also guilty. Many view trees as pieces of furniture, to be moved or disposed of on a whim, or because they are “dirty”, or to open up a view. Ironically, big trees are big selling points in real estate. Trees deaden sound, clean the air, slow traffic, and increase property values – even in business districts. Shopping areas with tree lined streets are viewed as more ‘upscale’. Most people, when asked what they love about Seattle, will not cite affordability, or air quality. Most will say “trees” or “greenery”.

The decline of our air quality is in direct correlation to the loss of our trees. I would urge everyone concerned with this issue to consider the following:

Visit PlantAmnesty.org and sign the petition urging passage of stricter guidelines for tree removal.

Plant trees – in your yard, on the planting strip (yes, it’s a PLANTING strip, not a PARKING strip) and urge the City to plant more street trees as Mayor Nickels promised, but has not delivered on.

Educate your neighbors about the consequences of tree loss.

Lastly, here’s a suggestion for those who don’t know or care and don’t want to: MOVE TO NEVADA. There are no trees there, few regulations, and a lower cost of living. If you want to live in a desert, please move to one. But don’t create one wherever you go.

Share This

[vincent]

Sorry but this is nimby bait, if you want to live in groves of trees, as wonderful as they are, move to redmond and pay the taxes on an acre lot where you can have the room for them.

Average lot size in the city is around 4500 square feet and shrinking. Its not enough room for most conifers. Groves in parks are great but this thinly veiled density backlash isn’t helping anything.

Wheres all this energy when they were designing the new park next to the beverage place? How many conifers did you recommend for that park? And how many do you have on your own personal property?

Share This

[villagegreen]

Amen. It consistently amazes me that West Seattleites seem hell bent on turning this peninsula into a no tree zone. Hooray – views for all!!!

Even though certain sections of WS seem almost clear-cut, I still think of WS as relatively wooded compared to other parts of the city. However, I’m always shocked how tree lined and wooded the residetial areas of Capitol Hill are. Why the difference? Everyone is not entitled to a view from their kitchen window.

It seems to me that WS is home to a disproportionate amount of the Midwest transplants in this city (and I’m one of them myself), so maybe that explains it. People are scared by them big bad trees that sometimes sway in the wind. If you’re afraid of a tree falling on your head and you’d rather have unobstructed views, the OP makes a good point about looking up Nevada in an atlas. Hell, if you don’t wanna go that far check out White Center – or as my friends call it “Bright Center.”

Share This

[anonyme]

Vincent, I live on a 3500 sq. ft. lot. I have 4 conifers, 2 mid-sized, 2 smaller, in addition to 10 ornamentals, 2 fruit trees, and a vegetable garden. It is all well-planned and not crowded. I think you miss the point that trees are not just optional decoration, or a luxury to be enjoyed by suburbanites; they are essential to survival, especially urban survival. You also miss the point when you dismiss these facts as “density backlash”. I’m all for density, and many cities – those with good city planners, anyway – have recognized the importance of trees and integrated planting into planning. I agree that people should not be planting Doug fir and other large or unstable trees in the city. That does not mean that existing trees should be eliminated. From what I’ve observed, the reasons for cutting these trees (in addition to the ones given in the OP) are often something like wanting additional parking for the 4 cars, boat and 20 ft. RV. I’d like to suggest to you that it is the RV that should be exiled to Redmond, not the trees.

Share This

[B-squared]

Anonyme – couldn’t agree with you more. But educating the average homeowner or developer about basic ecology seems like a losing battle. i would like to see a take a tree down/plant a tree trade off (equal value trees of course). It will take years to undo the damage that thoughtless, selfish, short-sighted folks do, but we have to start somewhere.

and to vincent- i was there at beveridge place park planning. There is suppose to be a large specimen tree in the NE corner, and some evergreen trees around the perimeter. they may be small scale as the scale of the park is such.

Share This

[vincent]

Thats great you have the trees you like, but as said its not practical for everyone, coming up with legislation to tell people what they have to have or not have in their yard isn’t going to win you any converts. If you want conifers on your lot, thats awesome, for all the reasons the OP listed, but if I want a garden, or a RV park its my yard and I should be able to do whatever I want with it, within reason. This is attempting to legislate behavior, and ultimately what other people can do with their own property. Without a compelling arguable reason, not just someones personal preference of, ” I like trees so you have to grow and maintain them” its always a short sided and bad idea.

Share This

[anonyme]

B-squared, I like your trade-off idea – sort of like carbon trading. My only concern is the time involved before a seedling can provide the same carbon-offset as a mature tree – but it’s a start. You’re also absolutely right that the average Joe is unlikely to understand – or care about – the environmental imperatives at stake here. So, what do we do? I guess this discussion is one way of getting some ideas. I think most people agree on this issue. The problem is that a few can do so much irreparable damage.

Many view any restriction on property use as a violation of rights. The fact is, behavior is legislated all the time, as well as property use, especially within city limits. Law itself could be defined as a curtailing of ‘rights’. Unfortunately, behavior must often be legislated for the good of the many, because there are those incapable of making decisions for other than pure personal gain. “Within reason” is an ill defined term, broadly interpreted to mean “I’ll do whatever I damn well please” and “Nobody tells me what to do”. These are juvenile stances; surely there is a better approach.

Vincent, I find it disappointing that you insist on ignoring the several “compelling, arguable reasons” I have presented, and instead choose to dismiss them by way of reframing the issue as petty personal preference. Have you considered that your own opinion is also “personal preference” and should, therefore – by your own definition – be disregarded?

One more point. Aesthetics is not a four letter word. There is nothing wrong, or sissified, or frivolous about wanting to save something solely because it’s beautiful. I realize I’m going out on a limb here (sorry about the pun) but aesthetics are important to almost everyone, whether they admit it or not. Nobody prefers to live with ugliness, and as I stated in my first post, trees have been proven to have an overwhelmingly positive (and compellingly arguable) psychological impact that cannot – and should not – be ignored.

Share This

[vincent]

We live in a city with one of the most polluted rivers in the US and home to a concrete plant that burns tires to save money.

And you are worried about how we can make a law about how trees look on your neighbors lawn and if they are cleaning enough air?

I think you have a serious issues with perspective.

Share This

[B-squared]

Perspective? How about the perspective beyond one’s tiny world and brief stay on this planet?

the trees anonyme is referring to have been cleaning the air and water, sequestering carbon, providing flood control, erosion control, cooling homes and neighborhoods, providing habitat for wildlife, adding property value, provide sound dampening, etc…. for decades. (i left out educational benefits for children, aesthetic value, spirtual, emotional and psychological value, as those things are more subjective).

Urbanites/suburbanites, with the ME-NOW perspective have vastly compromised the environment by removing trees or neglecting them so that they have to be removed. The “i have the right to do as i wish on my property” attitude is going to continue to compromise the very elements that appeal to most people in seattle. that perspective is fine if we each lived in a vacuum with no influence outside our own little spheres. but we are all connected and our behaviors effect others in our community. but we don’t seem to care because it’s ME-NOW! screw anyone that comes after me. if you want to read about the tragedy of cutting down trees, read the portion of Jared Diamond’s Book “Collapse” where he discusses Easter Island and how they cut their trees down to make rollers to move large rocks from the quarry to their edge of the pie to make large impressive heads. by competing in the head carving activities, they cut down all the trees. everything pretty much went to hell from there. and it didn’t have to be that way. perhaps that’s what archaeologist that study our remains will lament.

Share This

[WSB]

And please note that today the City Council passed new legislation that is supposed to, well, cut down on cutdowns … although three big trees could be cut on a 5,000-sf lot in the course of a year and you have to wonder how many lots that size have that many trees left. I’m also wondering how the bill will play WRT development … there are many lots around here that have had many more than three sizable trees chopped away for homebuilding in recent years.

https://westseattleblog.com/blog/?p=14462

Share This

[vincent]

I think I puked in my mouth a little. Your crazed eco-retoric just made me that ill. Heres my point in a nutshell. Keep in mind I actually really like trees.

Your asking that a homeowner maintain, pay taxes on and generally support and bear the cost of restricted use of their own property, for your benefit. If thats not me-now, I don’t know what is. You can only seem to quantify your reasoning under “aesthetic” and then a bunch of green peace gibberish that hardly applies to a city. There are far better avenues than attacking your neighbors, and many begin in your own house. The rules proposed by the city are decent, but should have more teeth and be tied to the permitting process of new and small developments, re: micropermitting. However saying people shouldnt be able to use their own yards is just off the deepend nanny state gone horribly wrong.

Share This

[JanS]

as I see it (and that doesn’t count for much), it’s not to benefit the personal space of the OP…it’s more for benefitting the world in general? When I sold my property on Genesee Hill in 1997, it had a couple of fir trees, 3 apple trees, plum, cherry, pear tree…it was 3 lots, and lovely..green grass, pleasant to see and be in. Owners cut down every one of them, grass is a lovely color of dried brown (no shade)…and there is now a box of sand in their barren desert. Yeah, it was their business to do so, but it’s a proven fact that trees help our air, our eco-system, and now what do they have? It’s ugly>

I understand what yo9u’re saying Vincent…but puking in your mouth? Grow up..it’s not all about you…there are some thhings that are bigger than yo9u. If everyone in SEattle decided to get rif of all their trees, our air quality would be worse (in my book – again not worth much). We all have a responsibility to our world – it’s not just up to the other person so you can be all about “me, me, me”. We all live in this city for certain reasons, one being it’s lovely livability. Even you, whether you realize it or not. If you trulybelieve what you’re saying, you won’t object when Clem moves in next door with his 4 beat-up cars, some car parts, and basic packrattedness(is that even a word ?).

So I agree with both…we shouldn’t be regulated to death re:greenness, but we sho0uldn’t be selfish regarding our world, either..

well, the sun is out once more between rain drops…there is hope, spring is almost here…enjoy the day…

Share This

[B-squared]

crazed eco-retoric. wow. not really. take a biology class, botany class, ecology class, environmental science class. or take a prilosec.

trees are a component of a healthy ecosystem, which i prefer over a dying one.

Share This

[karen]

Haven’t we had this discussion? My property is MY property. If I choose to cut down my trees that should be my business. I totally get the eco-green thing. Instead of berating and legislating, maybe an incentive to keep or plant trees would be more in line. People are so much more apt to go for the carrot than the stick.

And if Clem moves in next store – well not my choice but that is part of why I did not chose to live in a community with covenants.

Trees are great. I have one that I am trying to get heritage status for. I also have two that I will be removing. Trees get sick, they grow through water and power lines, they can be hard to maintain and they do fall down. Demanding that someone else keep trees for the greater good does seem a little demanding.

Share This

[villagegreen]

But I can’t – killing oneself is illegal. Damn the government for legislating behavior!

Share This

[WSB]

Even in jest, suggestions to kill yourself or someone else are not allowed here; a comment has been flagged and deleted.

Share This

[vincent]

Its a reference to the church of euthanasia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Euthanasia which generally mocks many controversial causes by taking them to their logical end.

When people start chanting for laws to preserve trees strictly based on the fact they clean the air, then we should be looking into reducing how many people we have around as well. you know, to protect the environment.

WSB internet meme fail.

Have you seen the cats with funny sayings?

Share This

[B-squared]

Excellent.

“According to the church’s website, it is “a non-profit educational foundation devoted to restoring balance between Humans and the remaining species on Earth.”

And to think i had given up on organized religion! Where do i sign up?

Share This

[Ken]

The three per year rule is fine.

I have a conifer starting to impact my power drop. I don’t really have any choice but to top it and then remove it.

I usually plant trees when I remove one and I have never removed one unless it was dead or shedding large broken limbs in the past.

But I am behind on my forestry. Still I can wait till next year to remove the volunteer birch that is bending my fence if it means I get to remove the Holly tree, the spruce in the power line and the other volunteer stand in the alley that I should have pulled up when they were sprouts. The garbage truck has to swing wide now to avoid scraping the loader off the running board.

On the other hand, my neighbor planted 5 trees in the only spot I had a remaining view of the city.

He ignored every other part of the yard. They are lined up with mathematical precision to make sure it blocks that tiny remaining slice of view from my 5 x 8 window.

Just because you plant trees does not mean your eco friendly.

Share This

[inactive]

Then there are peeps who have trees but do not know how to take care of them properly.

http://www.plantamnesty.org/stoptopping/5reasons.aspx

Share This

[HMC Rich]

I think we, humanity, should be on high alert. There is a menace out there and they are called trees.

There needs to be something done about these sinister beings.

Some say their bark is worse than their bite but I am not certain. One tree tripped my wife while she was walking on 42nd and Brandon. It had the audacity to grow roots and press the sidewalk up. This is a hazard to all of us, especially at night when we can’t see so well. The tree just stood there and didn’t say SORRY to her.

Tree gangs seem so innocent but they are not. They pop up in the strangest places without permits. They grow into power lines, phone lines, cable lines. They block our satellite dishes and line of sight to the natural wonders of the world.

They hate electricity. Tick off a tree and it will throw itself on power lines. Burying the power lines is no deterrent. Their roots seek out and destroy underground power lines not to mention gas, septic or sewer lines.

They are incorrigible. They mock the wind. They sway and shake and tease the wind. Then when humans decide to warm up their home with a log on the fireplace during the windstorm, those trees get irritated and fall on the electric lines and then for revenge throw themselves on houses too! Then they tease the wind and say, “You come and go but when I move the earth and surrounding area change”. They have no respect.

To add insult to injury they litter like you wouldn’t believe. Twigs, needles, branches, cones, birds nests. It is unbelievable. They are so contrary, I mean really, when it gets cold you would think they would stay clothed but no they strip off their leaves and bare it for the whole world to see. They cost every tax payer money and materials to clean up after their insolent actions.

Humans cannot stand toe to toe with a tree. Can a human recover from a large nail hammered into them? Not usually. Can a human have an arm taken off and have another one grow back? Noooo. A human can fall on a tree and the tree doesn’t even notice, turn it around and a human cannot handle a tree falling on a person. Nasty, Nasty trees.

Trees have a vendetta against technology.

They aren’t dumb. They know what a saw is and they will try to do anything to stop power tools. Why do you think they are always hanging around populated areas. They undermine our infrastructure. They ruin our sidewalks, our streets, our houses, our industry, our rivers.

Not to mention they harbor terrorists. Ants, beatles, birds, snakes, spiders, opossums, raccoons and all kinds of nasty little bandits. They are a menace to society. Something needs to be done.

Humans don’t stand a chance. Arborists are nothing with their puny little tools. Kamikaze trees abound in the wild. They mock lightning and then lightning strikes hit them. The trees say “So What” and go on incredible arsonist rampages taking out human and animal homes. They don’t care about the carnage they leave behind. They sneer at the erosion that follows and the scars they leave behind. They hate firefighters and Smokey the Bear because they are so willing to sacrifice themselves to spite everyone and everything else.

Trees are dangerous. Their lobby in government is getting stronger. They have almost banned wood from being burned in the cities under the guise of fighting pollution. They are an exceptional and strong political group.

We must immediately call a truce with the trees. If not, they may take us over. Beware Puny Humans, Beware.

Share This

[HMC Rich]

I am one person who doesn’t believe in conspiracy theories but I have more information on the Tree cabal.

Apparently the United States and the State Of Washington are in imminent danger from our neighbor to the north. Yes, Canada.

The South Park creators were almost right.

Anyway, It has been confirmed through a variety of sources that the trees have taken over Canada. I offer you plain truth. I would not lie.

Their flag is a Maple Leaf! How far will this go?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Canada

The proof is in the pudding (or the syrup) but the conspiracy runs so deep that the true movement behind the flags origin has been covered up. Not one single word of this devious take over is present in the Wikipedia post.

Also, and this is extremely important, according to the National Royal Canadian Band . . . Rush, the Maples formed a union!! The mighty Oaks never stood a chance.

Forget the southern border. Protect the northern border.

When will the madness end!

Share This

[mom2soren]

As an aside, check out Nature Consortium. They are doing restorations and tree plantings in West Seattle w/in the Duwamish greenbelt. They have volunteer work parties/tree plantings, open to anyone interested:

http://www.naturec.org/restoration.htm

Share This

[B-squared]

Thanks for mentioning that, mom2soren. additionally, there are regular work parties occuring at many west seattle parks and natural areas (Schmitz, Mee Kwa Mooks, Lincoln, Fauntleroy, Orchard street, Longfellow Creek, …). Much of that volunteer work focuses on removing invasive species – especially the english ivy that is choking the few remaining urban tree stands.

Share This

[Author]

Posts