Who intimately lives with rain
I love trees. And most of the time, I'm glad to live in a city that looks after them well. The whole heritage tree program is neat -- every Portlander should take a walk or a ride and check out the heritage trees nearby.
On Friday the city sent around a notice that's a little bit puzzling. It reminded us that the bureaucracy has been working for a couple of years now on a package of clarifications and improvements to the many city rules about trees. And yes, they're still working on it, with a draft of a new version of the rules coming out... well, at some point. So what else is new?
Another thing that was a bit off-putting was this:
This project was identified in the City's Urban Forest Action Strategy as a high priority item to enhance the urban forest canopy through development and redevelopment.Why does everything in this town -- including saving the danged trees -- have to revolve around "development and redevelopment"? We need a City Council that will get the city out of the real estate business, which, let's face it, has been mainly a failure.
| Posted at 1:20 PM | Permalink |
|
Comments (5)
Off-putting? That was the single-most Orwellian sentence I've seen yet from those nincompoops. To enhance the urban forest canopy -- my arse.
Posted by Mojo | October 19, 2009 6:47 PM
The city is really just blah, blah, blah and no action around trees. One of my neighbors took out several large trees (albeit in stages). He topped the tallest and removed ever branch. The city's tree czar team bought his story that he was just pruning and that the tree would be OK. Of course it died and he sold the house and it was removed and nothing of equivalent size replaced it or the other trees he hilled.
Posted by LucsAdvo | October 19, 2009 9:38 PM
Things are certainly "most Orwellian" beyond just words in this city. My neighbor removed two potted trees on each side of his front entry that had 4" trunks right at the ground=they were diseased according to a landscape arborist they consulted. They removed it without thinking the city consultation/permit was required. Wrong! They received a letter of a fine and possible jail time.
I have a 40 year old dog wood that through the years a limb came less than 7.5 ft.in height from the inside edge of the sidewalk-it was 7 ft. I also got a letter of a potential fine if not removed. I thought we were a city of trees-especially since this tree is a native dogwood. Along this same street on the same side there are nine homes that also have vegetation inside this magical envelope the city has developed. The city never bothered to cite them, which is fine with me, but certainly not equal enforcement-that's another issue.
Ahhhh, Orwellian.
Posted by Lee | October 19, 2009 9:45 PM
"My neighbor removed two potted trees on each side of his front entry that had 4" trunks right at the ground they were diseased according to a landscape arborist they consulted. They removed it without thinking the city consultation/permit was required. Wrong! They received a letter of a fine and possible jail time."
Did someone rat your neighbor out? Also if they are potted how do any regs apply to them?
Posted by Mike | October 20, 2009 6:18 PM
Orwellian indeed. Recently, I made inquiries to the city on behalf of a century-old western hemlock near me that will likely be cut down soon to make way for a skinny house. It was made clear to me that the city would rather have the skinny house than the tree. I think it really says something about Portland's priorities when the cleanest, greenest thing around has less moral standing than a greedy developer. It is density at all costs, folks. Damn the trees!
Posted by Alice | October 21, 2009 11:38 AM