Monday, October 30, 2006

Does the City need a Municipal Tree Ordinance?

A tree fell, yesterday, Oct 29, 2006, on Lawrence St. This was a huge tree, and had once been beautiful, but, as you can see from the photos, was a danger for years. We are all lucky that no one was entering the house at the time this came down, and no one was walking along the sidewalk. Folks are killed by dangerous trees that fall "unexpectedly" every year. This is a shame, and we need effective tree maintenance to manage our City trees.

This tree failed due to illness, not due to the "storm" on a sunny, but windy day. The tree should have been examined, and removed before it posed a danger, and certainly before it collapsed. Allowing City trees which are ill, and pose a danger, to exist along our City streets, unmarked, is outrageous disregard for the public safety!!

Years ago, many of us expressed concern for the health and maintenance of our then some 17,000 City owned trees. we wanted a Municipal Tree Ordinance. Instead, our wishes were "hijacked" by those who wanted a way to raise taxes, and at the same time claim they were protecting the environment! Those folks manipulated others, (tree huggers?) into believing that a Private Property Tree Protection Ordinance was the "answer!" These well meaning, but ignorant activists circulated petitions and got hundreds, if not thousands of signatures. Many folks were fooled by this, and wrote letters in support of the Private Property Tree Protection Ordinance, stating that we needed it to protect and care for our City owned trees, in parks, and that lined our City streets.

Of course, not a single City owned tree is covered by the City's private property Tree Protection Ordinance.

Taxpayers trusted Councilor Davis, when she interrupted my public testimony In City Council about this topic. She shouted out that what I was saying was not true. However, what I was saving was all too true. It was true then, and is true today. The private property Tree Protection Ordinance is nothing but a tax. It does not address the care and maintenance of the City's trees, that once numbered 17,000.

We, like other cities our size with many municipally owned trees, need a Municipal Tree Ordinance.

When the City fails to properly care for, maintain, and manage our trees, the trees are at risk. when they become ill they are dangerous. They are now a foreseeable risk.

Just like if you do not maintain your roof, and it begins to leak in the rain, the water damage is not caused by the rain, it is caused by your failure to maintain your property, so when the City trees are mot cared for, they become ill, and when they fall, it is not caused by the Mother Nature, but by Human Nature, human neglect, the City's abject failure to adopt a Municipal Tree Ordinance, for the care and management of our beautiful and valuable trees.

How many other dangerous trees are hanging over us like a sword, just ready to strike without warning?

We need a Municipal Tree Ordinance, one with teeth, and we need it now.


At Thursday, November 02, 2006 4:58:00 PM, Blogger Jon Ernest said...

Good picture.

The wind was brutal that day. I saw a tree over in Allston on Comm ave that fell off/over, just like that one, and it CRUSHED a car.

I arrived in time to see an ambulance take off, but it was driving away slowly, so I assume no one got seriously injured.

At Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:21:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

you are an idiot


Post a Comment

<< Home