I wonder if an insurance company could sue the CoP for damages a dangerous tree causes. Given the the city is forcing the increase in liability risk, I would love to see it.

What happens if a dangerous tree falls on a house and kills someone? Lawsuit.

City of Roses? City of Red Tape.

and...good luck trying to get a permit for anything these days.
When I was at the 4th street location for another reason last week I noticed the BDS line was backed up into the halls.
I cannot imagine how long it would take to get a permit to cut down a tree, however unstable or dangerous it was.

One way to send a message is vote out Fish and Saltzman this November. That will certainly send a message to the rest of the council, to get their act together. I keep thinking I am having a nightmare and will wake up and see that Bud Clark is still the mayor.

I also wish they'd be a little more vigilant in having people prune back some of the larger trees in their front yard/parking strip that hang out over the street, obstructing intersections, stop signs, etc. There are two MAMMOTH chestnut trees in my neighborhood that each block a stop sign and create other havoc, and the city seems completely uninterested in doing anything about it, as do the individual property owners.

Jack Bogdanzki for Mayor

It's the only way

BTW, for what it is worth a small copper nail driven into the base of the tree at the root line will eventually kill most trees.

It's unfortunate to regulate people's trees on their property, but most homeowners do not know basic tree car such as pruning (just count all of the trees that are topped -- which is terrible for trees), let alone assessing whether a tree is a hazard or not. They can't even properly identify certain trees species, which is even more troublesome.

The reality is, trees are going to litter and they are going to have branches that break and they are going to be issues in urbanized environments. That is a given. The opposite of that is:

a) Don't have any trees
b) Plant "nice" trees. Nice trees = upright red maples that don't have a canopy.

Imagine Ladd's being planted in Callery pears instead of Elm trees? Those elm trees make that neighborhood.

A and B are not desirable options, imo, unless someone wants to make the arguments that an 80 year old red oak isn't as nice as a 15 year old purple plum.

Just because a limb looks "gangly" does not mean it's an issue. Limbs and trees are supposed to be flexible...

This topic is one that really riles me up. The City expects property owners to pay all the costs when the roots of street trees damage sidewalks, but property owners have no ownership rights. They can't cut the trees down, replace them, or even prune them. If a large tree causes an accident by blocking a stop sign, the property owner is out of luck, as the City won't let the owner cut the tree down even if it is a hazard. This is one of the reasons I don't live within the City's boundaries anymore.

I'll take your big old street trees. They add many thousands of dollars of value to your house.

I recall a neighbor's "tree predicament."

The city cited him for the unsafe condition of his sidewalk (i.e., broken and cracked concrete) due to tree roots (of his "street tree").

Anticipating future problems with said roots, he simply requested the right to remove the old large tree and replace it with something with less potential to damage the sidewalk.

The city denied his request, but DID require him to pour a new sidewalk up and over the tree roots, thereby making a very strange ascent and descent over the tree roots.

Fast forward (whoosh!):
It's now 2010, about 4 years later, and yes, the tree is now lifting and destroying the new sidewalk (just as he'd predicted).

Gawd Forbid---he'll eventually need a Tree Tram to navigate over those roots.

Go figure...

-ob

About time. Trees breaking up sidewalks is a small part of the situation. Our green city will be pretty gray if the code as is continues. Old growth trees on private land can be chopped very easily as enabled by the "city forester" (actually city woodchopper). And when they're cut down it's often for the purposes of infill development and 5-unit condos fitting on single lots. Sorry homeowners, you buy a lot with an ancient tree you take on the responsibility.

Pat:"This topic is one that really riles me up. The City expects property owners to pay all the costs when the roots of street trees damage sidewalks, but property owners have no ownership rights. They can't cut the trees down, replace them, or even prune them. If a large tree causes an accident by blocking a stop sign, the property owner is out of luck, as the City won't let the owner cut the tree down even if it is a hazard. This is one of the reasons I don't live within the City's boundaries anymore. "

ws:I have never hear of a homeowner not able to prune the street trees in front.

Every city in the US *pretty much* has laws mandating that homeowners must maintain the street trees out front, but the trees are still public property (as they fall within the street right of way).

So, you're going to leave the city limits for a city with the same regulations?

I don't have trees in front of my house and probably never will. Not rich enough. It appears the city policy is that trees are only for the wealthy. The cost of sidewalk repairs, leaf removal and pruning will be exorbitant when, in a few years, I'm retired and living on a fixed income. Hell, it's probably more than I can afford right now.

PG, nice try. "Old growth trees on private land ..." You're aware Portland's nickname was "Stumptown," aren't you? Look at some old city photos some time. Few of the trees we have in Portland now are native, let alone "ancient." And a 12-inch diameter doesn't necessarily mean a very old tree for many species. Take cottonwood, for example. The bane of water systems and foundations. Very rapid growth and very destructive. Ridiculous that the city is telling homeowners they can't cut down trees that they very well may have planted a few decades ago. Another example of this administration's neurosis.

Will Fireman Randy have to have a $5 million computer program designed for the trees too? Or perhaps just another $20 million in consulting fees will solve the problem in the short term. Will the "tree police" have guns or tasers to enforce the pruning codes?
The city government has more than enough to do without messing about in the back gardens of its citizens searching for illegal pruning.
Go...down the rabbit hole...by street car!

I don't understand why everyone is up in arms about not being able to cut down trees. You've sat on the sidelines doing nothing while much worse was being done to you and Portland. There are hundreds of examples that I'm aware of going back to Vera's reign as mayor to today's embarrassment of a mayor and city council. For me, I woke up one day and said "Enough. I'm done." Three years ago I moved out of the state, taking my tax dollars with me. It's a lot less irritating keeping up with the old hometown via papers and blogs than having to live in it.

"I'll take your big old street trees. They add many thousands of dollars of value to your house."

Go thru Ladd's Addition and see what they are doing to sidewalks which house owners are responsible for. That's a setoof against prop value increases.

On the other hand, the density developers are given a free hand to clearcut - in our 60 year old neighborhood of 1/2- and 1-acre lots, a developer bought 3-1/2 acres of open land with 44 trees worth cataloging. But the developer was able to hire a retired logger who can call himself a "Tree Expert" - this guy claimed that all but four trees were diseased or dangerous. A friend of a friend who is a tree surgeon said at most six were so, but the City's tree dept said they had to go by the developer's assertion & were supremely uninterested in getting involved. Meanwhile, a guy out on 158th cut down 20 scrawny poplars & was fined $20000. Density Ueber Alles! We now have repeated police visits to the 24 "townhouse" instant slum, on 3,000 sq foot lots!

Remember, according to Saltzman, "Trees have rights, too."

Steve:"Go thru Ladd's Addition and see what they are doing to sidewalks which house owners are responsible for. That's a setoof against prop value increases."

ws:Yeah, I'm sure the homeowners in Ladd's would prefer the neighborhood had smooth sidewalks instead of its large trees.

/sarcasm

Ironically, you get rid of the large trees that provide shade and comfort and you've gotten rid of any incentive to walk in the first place.

Because most people enjoy walking in full sun during the summer...Not.

PS: Even small trees crack sidewalks. The biggest issue is providing enough soil space (roots need water and air).

Yeah...The CoP needs to get some of that 'consistancy' they allude to in their pack of lies.

The travesties I've heard locals whine about have all been private development travesties...trees on private land. Stands of trees which were cleared wholesale to accommodate some kind of 'development'.

Portlanders are schizophrenic about this stuff. They DON'T want their neighbors to do anything about those beautiful trees, but they DON'T want the city telling them what they can do on their property.

Yes...The city is being very two-faced about all this crap. I'm a trained 'Neighborhood Tree Liaison' by the Parks and Recreation Urban Forestry program. Yes, they want us to educate the public on proper care, particularly pruning. Yet...they butcher street trees on a regular basis. The trees in front of my house are originals in the CITY OF PORTLAND tree planting program. They are now tearing up the walkway...for the second time. Now that they are large, I cannot even get the CoP DoT to take care of the fallen crap in the streets because several homes on our street DO NOT HAVE OFF-STREET PARKING and they will not tell us when the street sweepers will be on our street so that we can move our vehicles out of the way.

A property owner is not only required to care for street trees, they are required to meet specifications for height above walks and streets. The permit is "to assure that the pruning is done right." So...Why the hell do they need to charge anybody $35 to assure they do the pruning right...particularly if nobody comes back to inspect that it WAS done right, and if they did, there is no enforcement.

Laurelhurst gets special consideration on leaf disposal. So do other neighborhoods; some of which have fewer street trees than this area. We don't.

Do not listen to ANYTHING the City promises. They are lies. They just want to implement another permit program to charge you for the permit.

A permit to cut down trees on your property? I expect that to end up in court.

I just let the trucks that service may street do the pruning for me. Waste Management knocked out the last big branch, although UPS and FedEx got their share. If you go down NE Knott from 7th through 24th you can see what I am talking about. The tree canopy looks like it was expertly cut square as if it were done by an arborist. The power company also whacks at them pretty good. They have an ongoing permit.

Time to cut any large trees before the law goes into effect and cut any tree that gets to 1" below the threshold.

Thanks
JK

Portland only exists to amuse the rest of us.

Clackamas County is in the process of taking the first step toward confiscating people's personal property (trees) through regulation. If a tree in my yard is such a public benefit, where is my check from the public for the past 50 years of its enjoyment of MY TREES?

Trees are private property. Some have real value, a big black maple tree can be worth tens of thousands of dollars. If I want to plant or harvest trees on MY LAND why should others tell me what or how to do it?

Bah

PDXLifer, don't even get me started about cottonwoods. Not only are you looking at trees that are incredibly destructive to sewer lines and sidewalks, but then there's the seed fluff jamming up air conditioners and setting off asthma fits, the widowmaker branches that drop every time the rainfall slows, and the rains of caterpillars that first feed on the emerging leaves and then drop via silk threads into gardens and eat everything in sight. The worst part is that most are lucky to live thirty years, and they give almost no warning before they fall over. Half of them in residential areas across the US are opportunists that moved into unmown areas, and the owners of the property won't get rid of them because of a perceived value in having a monster tree in the back yard.

Of course, things can always be worse. I'm currently moving out of a house where the owner was proud to put in a chinaberry tree right next to the house. The only reason why the City of Dallas hasn't slapped him with a fine for planting a nuisance tree (with chinaberries being right up there with mimosa and hackberry) is because he put it in before the ordinance was in effect. Meanwhile, I've gotten really sick and tired of cleaning half-rotted berries out of the gutters and pulling up thousands of seedlings in the iris beds directly underneath the beast. If it were my house, though, it would have been gone five years ago.

ws - We moved to a newer neighborhood outside of Portland that doesn't have trees right next to the sidewalks.

Don't get me wrong, I love trees and wish I had room to plant more of them. They do add value to a property, both aesthetically and economically. However, it makes no sense to keep a tree that is going to ruin the sidewalk every two or three years and cause expensive repair bills for the homeowner. There are varieties that can be planted next to the sidewalk without damaging it. The City at least should be willing to let homeowners replace trees that are prone to causing chronic sidewalk trip hazards. Alas, trees have more rights than ordinary citizens at this stage of our political system's evolution. Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves.

Hey Texas,

I cut down a cottonwood once whose root (a very small one) had lifted a section of my basement concrete floor. It had leaves like elephant ears. I tried to split the rounds, but the axe just sunk in as though it was a sponge. So I let it dry. Then my efforts were equally futile as I was lucky to chip portions off. Plus it smelled like urine and didn't burn worth a damn. (Oh yeah, and the roots sent out starts for many years following).

I had to Google your chinaberry. Lovely stuff! I guess you don't want to make jam out of the berries, huh?

Now let's talk hawthorne!

PG is correct about old, native trees not having any protection against infill development. Sometime last year, I made several phone calls to find out if the old western hemlock next door has any protection when the landlord who owns it decides to tear down his rental, divide his lot & put up two skinny houses, and when I finally got to a guy who knows the rules, I was told the tree had no protection : the city would rather have the skinny house than the tree. Trees don't pay taxes, after all. I guarantee you that when the city figures out how to fit skinny houses on median strips, your dangerous street trees will disappear right away.

Pat:"There are varieties that can be planted next to the sidewalk without damaging it. The City at least should be willing to let homeowners replace trees that are prone to causing chronic sidewalk trip hazards."

ws:Where is this mythical city located that you live in? Once again, new developments in cities are required by regulation to have street trees put in on the street right of way. You can't live most new neighborhoods (in the Portland metro area) w/o having a street tree.

You missed my entire diatribe. Yes, there are varieties that are so called "friendly" to the sidewalks. They are often fastigiate (a fancy botany word for columnar), do not have canopies to protect one from the sun, are incredibly small, and are absolute junky when compared to most large trees.

What's the cost to take down a large tree vs. repair a sidewalk? You do know it costs money to take down a large tree, not to mention costs not captured such as reduced energy costs and stormwater capturing benefits from large canopies?

These things are very measurable and have costs associated with them. If there is a true reason to have a tree removed, it better be solid other than having the concrete occasionally crack.

Now...if it comes time to actually replace the tree, the right tree needs to be selected for the particular street tree width. I don't disagree with that, but more often than not, the world's ugliest tree is selected.

The idiot neighbors around me enjoy removing their trees so the house I am in can bake in the sun. Thanks for the "pruning".

I had a neighbor who topped a few of his big trees and then removed the remaining lower branches. Reported this to the city. They accepted his explanation that he had a right to prune his trees (even if his pruning methods killed the trees). It's all one big joke. And who is laughing depends on how the powers that be are feeling that day.

ws

I live in an incorporated part of Portland, outside the City boundaries.

I suspect you work for the City and earn your living saddling homeowners with tree costs that they really shouldn't need to bear. Admit it, ws, you're someone who thinks the populace "owes" you its tax money, aren't you? You're also probably someone who loves it that Sam Adams and his ilk are ruining the City's financial future with their harebrained schemes. It's OK, ws, we all make mistakes. Hopefully you'll regret yours long before you do more damage.

It's pretty easy to kill a nuisance tree - through "surgery" or chemicals. Just do it at night when nobody's watching. Once it's dead you can readily obtain a permit to take it down. Problem solved.

Pat:

I don't work for any city. I laid out a reasonable and cogent argument for maintaining existing street trees, and somehow instead of making a counter argument you have to put me down. That's not very mature.

How do you live in an incorporated part outside of Portland? Don't you mean an unincorporated part of Multnomah Co.? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't understand your situation.

I only ask because there are requirements, maybe even at the county level, that may dictate street tree guidelines.

If you're "incorporated", that means you live in a city with a municipal gov't...

I will reiterate. Most cities (in the entire US) dictate that you must maintain your street trees. Tampering with them can mean a lien that goes against your home.

It's fairly standard and it's not unique to Portland.

When I mean tampering, I mean killing them intentionally. Pruning is part of your maintenance duty for street trees.

I flipped Randy and all of Portland off years ago when i moved to Vancouver. I cut and plant on my property what i want and when i want. I also pay about a 1/3 less in property taxes then i did living in PDX. Send a message and move North.

Hmm, I've always done what I wanted in my gardens in three houses I have lived in in my fifteen years in Portland and noone has said boo.

Maybe we'de better get out while we're still safe from the death-trap of the jaws of BDS.

BTW, South African bamboo is a clumping varietal that grows to 16 feet, and is majestic and clean-lined, unlike all that fuzzy Asian stuff everyone is growing.

For a more realistic perspective:

http://historicphotoarchive.com/capsmonner/monner1645.html

Poke around the additional photos in these and other archives. Anyone who's been here for 50+ years remembers unobstructed views along most of Terwilliger, for example. There are more trees (and larger, much larger trees) in most of Portland than there were 100 years ago (or 50). To suggest that the conscientious control of trees on one's own property is detrimental is ridiculous. It's just another means of collecting revenue through permits. And I love trees.

I recently watched four century-old (5 feet fat that is) Douglas Firs get the chop so that some slicker could slap up a way oversize fake foursquare (instead of something that actually fit the lot, the neighborhood, and oh yeah, those pesky setback rules).

"We miss the trees," we said when he had the gall to ask how we liked his building, "why didn't you build a smaller house?"
"I wouldn't make enough money, heh heh," was his reply.

The city forester couldn't have cared less. The cutting was done on a weekend, seemingly off permit, but the fine would only be a few hundred, maybe a thousand. For building a 350K house? Tim-BRRRRRR!!

The real scandal is that the City of Portland actually doesn't care about losing trees -- including century old, hundred+ feet tall, 5 feet in diameter monster Doug Firs and such -- in the name of development. Whatever these new rules are about, they probably aren't going to get in the way of Progress.

It's criminal when they tell you what you can and can't do on your own property. Plant and Garden Blog

The way I deal with the tree police is I don't plant trees anymore (I used to plant trees haphazardly, taking some down and leaving some up, all for a net gain). And I scurry around the yard each spring to pull up the seedlings from last year's acorn crop lest the oak sprouts become large enough to capture the attention of the Green Big Brothers.

You gotta wonder if these regulatory nerds ever considered that virtually every tree they are trying to protect was planted, nurtured or permitted to flourish by someone acting of his or her own free will. All the tree-lined Maple Streets and the shady Oak Lanes didn't happen by accident.

Just goes to prove we pay the gov't for the right to maintain their land. That piece of paper saying you own the land doesn't mean squat.

ws - I was ill yesterday and perhaps a little more cranky and less attentive to details than usual.

I live in an unincorporated area of Washington County with a Portland address. I agree with you that most cities have tree regulations. The difference in Portland is that the bureaucrats aren't flexible and reasonable in their approach to applying the regulations. If you have a tree on your property that is chronically wrecking the sidewalk, they almost never allow you to cut it down and replace it with another that won't screw up the sidewalk. It is this culture of inflexibility toward the homeowner/taxpayer that is so galling to me, not to mention the issue of owning the property around sidewalks but having virtually no ownership rights.

Pat:

You don't own the property around sidewalks in any way. While your duties are to maintain the area, it's not yours.

Let me clarify...the sidewalk and street tree planters are public street right of ways.

What's keeping someone from taking stake in a sidewalk (ownership) and keeping people from walking by?

Just got this from the Water Bureau (of all places): "Approximately 50 dead trees were removed to get Dodge Park safe and ready for a busy summer!"

Here's the link:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=384338809712

i was recently arrested for removale of a tree on a parking strip come to findout it was my neighbors tree that ive been taking care of for the past two years the city sent me a letter saying to plant three trees and pay a fine mind u the tree has done damage to my cars and the sidewalk is all busted up so know im charged with criminal mischief 1 a felony had to post 500dollar bail hire a lawyer for 7500 what a joke!

i have a huge fir tree in back yard in vancouver....would someone like it? ;-)