Tree controversy hits the Globe

[bobobb.livejournal.com]

I found this commentary interesting and it's right in Davis Square!

http://www.boston.com/community/blogs/askthepilot/2014/01/a_somerville_tree_saga_redefin.html

As a landlord who had to cut back a dying tree or have my insurance cut off (as a letter from the insurance company threatened), I have mixed feelings about this commentary and the author's suggestions. At the same time, I have three other healthy trees in my backyard I wouldn't touch.

Comments

[ron_newman]

Long-time listeners here may remember the saga of the Thorndike Willow tree, aka 'Belinda'.

(links: zero, one, two, three.)

[prunesnprisms.livejournal.com]

Seriously? I live a block away from Appleton and have no idea what tree he's talking about that defined the neighborhood.

We have to take down a rather large in the spring, or sooner, because it's a risk to the house and the power lines. I can't wait to hear from the neighbors about it.

[intuition-ist.livejournal.com]

Whoever owns the bare lot at Highland Ave & Cherry St made me really sad when s/he cut down the giant tree that used to be there. It was a bare lot (but for the tree) then, and it's a bare lot now, several years later. I miss that tree. My husband and I took some informal wedding photos under it, so it had sentimental as well as environmental value. I don't think I had any right to have a say in whether the owner cut it down. But I wish they hadn't.

[geekchik.livejournal.com]

I used to live in one of the buildings there. That was a lovely tree! But it was sick; not sure what was wrong with it but that was what I found out. I hope they'll plant something new there eventually.

[intuition-ist.livejournal.com]

...but having said that, I also take a very long and careful look at any trees near any property that I'm planning on living in long term, with an eye toward "what happens if a bad hurricane/windstorm/microburst hits? how likely am I to be looking at a major repair bill / insurance claim afterward as a result?" The results of that analysis factor into the buying decision.

[avjudge]

A neighbor over my back fence recently had the branches of his large maple tree trimmed at the request of another neighbor whose back porches it was invading (they came into my yard, too, but weren't really in my way), and I gave him a Christmas card with a significant % of the trimming cost enclosed, to express my appreciation that he didn't just say "too much bother" and take the whole thing down!!

[keithn.livejournal.com]

While I don't agree with restricting property owners from removing trees from their own property, I do think that IF we went this route, and we viewed trees on private property as "belonging to the community" as the author of this article states, then the community should be responsible for the costs of leaf removal, pruning, insurance premiums, and anything else related to the tree. If something belongs to you, you have to pay for it.

[mzrowan.livejournal.com]

This!

[ifotismeni]

my thoughts exactly.

[prunesnprisms.livejournal.com]

indeed.

[mzrowan.livejournal.com]

There's a dispute over a tree going on in my neighbourhood, too. It's on Neighbour A's property, but it's destroying Neighbour B's garage (causing the wall to cave in and the floor to buckle). Neighbour A refuses to discuss having it taken down or replaced, though. And of course, A is perfectly within their rights, if not very neighbourly. I have no idea how it's going to get resolved, but it'll probably involve lawyers.

Also, as someone who recently had to have one tree removed (threatening the roof & foundation) and another cut back (making a squirrel highway to the attic), I'll put in a plug for Barrett Tree Service East (http://www.barretttreeeast.com/). Reasonable prices, professional work, and great communication.

[craigindaville.livejournal.com]

IANAL, but my general understanding was that the law allows a property owner to cut a tree up to their property line, both above (limbs) and below (roots). In your situation, Neighbor [sic, going for the 'Murican way of speakin' English good] B would be within his/her rights to do something about the issue, although admittedly not a full resolution.

And I have to say, the original article was depressing to read in its overwrought naivete. He gives "liberals" a bad name, or at least an easy strawman argument for the whacked out conservatives who worry about black helicopters and Agenda 21 or whatever. Yes, we all like pretty trees, but we also all like rainbows and nice sunsets and ponies, but we don't have a right to those, either.

[serious-noir.livejournal.com]

That article struck home. A few years ago my boorish neighbor cut down a majestic willow tree in his yard (one block over from Highland). Twice as high as his house but far enough away from it that it posed no threat. He just thought it was "dirty." At the time I called around to see if there was anything that could be done to prevent this action but alas there was not. The result is that my neighbor has a denuded, sterile square bit of "yard" and we all have increased traffic noise from Highland Ave (and for me, at least, loss of the beauty of this majestic tree).

This same neighbor (the type of guy who "cleans" his driveway daily with a garden hose and gives everyone in the neighborhood the hairy eyeball) convinced my rather passive landlord that a tree in our yard was "diseased." It wasn't: it just dropped leaves in the fall and some of those blew into his yard.

And for the hat trick, the non-resident landlord on the other side actually came into our backyard and cut down two tall young trees which abutted her own sterile, denuded patch of "yard." Didn't ask anyone, she just did it. And not only that but she threw the cut trees back into our yard. Amazing, right? What was even more amazing was that when I encountered her a week later and confronted her about it, she seemed truly to have no clue that what she did was legally, ethically or "neighborly" wrong. And of course my landlord didn't care.

I get that raking leaves is work and I get that trees sometimes interfere with power and telecom lines. But the default should not be to cut them down (or let the cable companies hack them into ugly, weakened wrecks). Somerville doesn't have enough green space as it is and, as housing density and gentrification increases, it will only get worse.

[ifotismeni]

i've been house hunting around here lately and this has actually been a thing i've thought about. when you see a lovely property surrounded by trees, you can't help but wonder what the place would look like, or how it'd be impacted (positively or negatively) by a tree being cut down. in these smaller lots you really do have to maintain the trees properly so they don't cause a hazard later down the line, and i can definitely see why many property owners opt to remove them, sadly.

[witchdogtor.livejournal.com]

Nothing destroys the aesthetics of a neighborhood (on multiple levels and senses) like the removal of a tree. I rent and therefore have no say in the maintenance of the last few remaining trees in my neighborhood, but I would gladly "adopt" one and accept responsibility for its upkeep if it meant that I had a voice in deterring the big tree-eating truck.

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

He writes, "Is it crazy or un-American to suggest that, at a certain point, a tree is no longer one person's private property per se, and belongs to the community?"

It goes against the current definitions of property rights, yes. But if you want to have rights in a tree that sits on another person's property, you can set up an easement that specifies that you have some rights regarding the disposition of the tree. All you have to do is pay the owner enough money that they think it is worth relinquishing that bit of control over their property. And if you aren't willing to pay that much money, then clearly the tree isn't that important to you.

[gruene.livejournal.com]

It actually goes against property rights less than you might imagine. There's a legal notion of the "public trust doctrine", which is that certain resources have to be protected, even if they're privately owned. Usually this applies to waterways, seashores, lakes and the like. I've never heard of it applying to an individual true, though I suppose it wouldn't be entirely beyond the bounds of plausibility.

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

As far as I can see (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_trust_doctrine), the public trust doctrine only applies to navigable waters. So I'd say that the current definitions of property rights in American law provide no basis for claiming a tree is a public trust.

[gruene.livejournal.com]

It would certainly be a novel application of the doctrine. I hope I was sufficiently clear in that.

There is precedent for using it for environmental resources that are riparian in nature, though not navigable. National Audubon Society v. Superior Court is one of the most famous applications of this.