RECENT COMMENTS
Eric S. Huffstutler on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
lanny on then it happens to you...
JessOfRVA on then it happens to you...
Becky Metzler on Updated! Guess what's happening on Mosby/Venable?
Mary on then it happens to you...
Sid on then it happens to you...
Becky Metzler on Church Hill Startup Tackles Insurance for Freelancers
urban forest threatened
11/21/2007 6:30 AM by John M
With examples from Fulton and 21st Street, today’s RTD has a look at the city’s “complaint-driven tree-maintenance policy [which] threatens the urban forest“. City crews are cutting down 1,500 to 2,000 trees a year (often in response to neighbor complaints), while planting only 300 new trees.
TAGGED: trees
How about burying the power/cable/phone lines? Then those pesky trees would no longer be a problem.
Kelly, while I agree with you, I must bring up the fact that it is extremely expensive to bury the lines. I read one study that indicates it would cost about $1 million per mile to bury power lines. Burying the lines would, however, create a much more aesthetically pleasing area, which could create greater economic activity and hopefully offset those costs, but that’s debatable.
Oregon Hill would love to see the lines buried. Hell, we would love to get better service, period.
We have the same issues with trees. We have regularly petitioned for more trees and tree protection.
I never understood why they don’t just use the poles in the alleys. Why run power lines in the front?
I wonder if there is any effect of power lines in the street and the crime rate?
Does Richmond have a Tree Commission or similar organization that reviews all tree removals (and creates/manages an urban forestry plan)?
yes there is something like that but i am not sure that they all review the tree removals. dept of parks and rec had an urban forester a few years ago. richard stutts & norma murdock kitt (not city employees) have some connection to the city tree commission/committee. they are in the phone book. the city clerk could tell you the people appointed to the city tree group
One of the landmark trees in Union Hill was taken down yesterday. The tree has anchored the corner of 22nd and Leigh Street for 100 years. Having a diameter of nearly four feet, this tree was healthy and could have provided shade and fresh air for a long time to come. The tree was located just next to the sidewalk at the very far end of the lot. Needless to say, the corner and the streetscape will never be the same again.
I would like to know who was responsible for the removal of the ‘landmark tree’, which lived on the corner of 22nd and Leigh Street.
After watching the sad progress of the men cutting down the tree, I could not help but wonder at the motives of the people ordering such an operation.
When all said and done, it is yet another piece of Richmond’s rich history raised to the ground, with apparently very little consideration.
We have one here at the end of Marshall Street and one right in the middle of where the new proposed development would go that is holding a honey bee hive. Both of these and several others would be at risk if the plans for okayed. The very large one I mentioned is similar to the one you described above, Bill.
I love trees and one of these days those in charge are going to clue in to the fact that without them and other greenery we won’t have clean air to breathe.
Let’s all take a look at the areas around our houses and see what trees are an asset to the neighborhood. If they are on public right of way we can protect them and make a fight with the city to preserve the environment. If they are on private property, we will have a problem, just as is happening at 22nd and Leigh.
I cannot begin to explain what is now lost on that corner and the four blocks that connect there. If you get a chance, drive by and take a look at the barren corner. This was a healthy tree, prbably over 100 years old. It provided shade, absorbed stormwater run-off and helped clean the air. It also added real value to all the houses near it and in its view. I used to trim back its branches so trucks wouldnt damage the limbs when they drove by. There is now a crooked creosote electric pole with two glaring lights on the corner. Another blow to the urban forest, another blow for Union Hill to absorb. You cant plant a one hundred year old tree.
I have a beautiful canopy of 50 foot black oaks on my street, which shade my house, lend character to the neighborhood, and shelter a hundred squirrels and birds. If the city ever cuts them down, I will cry. And then I will move. I don’t know what kind of short-sighted mentality was responsible for cutting down the tree at 22nd and Leigh but I am truly sorry. we *should* mourn it!
I think it would def be worth looking into to find out who is making these choices for us.
One of the greatest benefits of a large city tree is its ability to absorb the sounds of the urban environment. A street with a few large trees is quieter than a street without trees.
The loss of the magnificent tree on the corner of North 22nd and East Leigh Street is a loss to the neighborhood in many ways.
Do we know yet who took it down? Sounds like the electric company again.
Why not contact Norm Brown-Arborist with the Urban Forestry Division and asked for information to participate in the up-coming classes to become a “Tree Steward.” He has Microsoft Word files that explain the program, which will be taught by tree care industry professionals.
Norm’s email: coffeecraver@earthlink.net
UH Neighbor,
Judging from the guy sitting on the curb fiddling with a chainsaw that was sitting on his lap, i don’t think it was the electric company.
Whose tree was it? The city or the property owner?
that grand old tree was on private property (you can see the trunk is well withing the property line and not encroaching on the sidewalk.)
a new home is to be built on that lot. perhaps the tree took up too much space for the property owner’s plans?
we can only hope a new fast growing tree is planted in it’s place, or somewhere else on the corner.
Pixie raises another point. The new house is outside the O&HD. Will it be a suburban vinyl-clad abhoration?
There were actually TWO old trees taken down by the same folks. Thia was NOT requested by the power company, and I am not even certain that the party who took down the 100 year old tree is the land owner of the property where the tree lived.
The 100 year old tree was directly adjacent to the recently renovated property at 603 N 22nd.
I use the term renovated loosely, because whoever buys that house is going to be in for a few surprises down the line. Maybe the prospective owner will notice the holes in the foundation, or the ‘new’ porch built around the old rotten one – maybe not.
In any case, there was no logical reason for killing this tree, except that maybe someone will now receive a discount on their homeowners insurance because a tree is less likely to fall on the house.
Real estate speculators know the price of everything, but the value of nothing.
Looking at the trunk, it is difficult to tell whether it is on the city property line. The tree is located right next to the sidewalk and sometimes the City property extends beyond the sidewalk.
A healthy, grand old tree, located on a corner in an historic district, cannot be replaced. To purchase a lot with a grand old tree on it comes with some responsibility. The tree was not located in the middle of the lot, it was at the very tip of the narrowest portion of the lot, right on the edge of the sidewalk. There is no reason to believe the tree would not have survived the construction of a house on that lot, any more than any street tree could survive construction nearby.
The neighborhood is worse off because that tree is gone. Every effort should have been made to preserve that natural wonder and piece of the historic fabric of the neighborhood. We all lose.
Bill, you said “every effort should have been made…” and N 22nd Street, you make a great point about the homeowners insurance incentive.
Well, until we have a city ordinance that slows down or prevents the cutting down of legacy trees, the destruction of our “urban forest” is going to continue to happen.
Even the highly regarded Gable Painter felt it necessary to remove “tall growth vegetation”; which some debated was really a tree or a tall weed. Would it have made a difference if he had to apply for a permit to take down a tree over a certain height?
Regardless of whether it’s a tall weed or old growth tree, this conversation will drift off into cyber space unless we get busy with our council person or the Mayor to get an enforceable ordinance passed.
Should we we make this a campaign issue for our council candidates in 2008?
Capital Gal,
I think we should make it an issue for the Council Candidates.
Capital Gal,
The City does need better tree orninances to enhance and protect the urban forest. Currently the Shade Tree Commission is inactive. There is a movement to rejuvenate the Commission and begin to address the many tree issues in the City. I support any effort to raise the awareness of the value of the urban forest and I think you are right that it should be an issue in the City Council and Mayoral elections.
In the meantime, we have to count on civic responsibility and making people aware that the trees of the City are of great value, especially in neighborhoods where large, historic trees are so rare.
Thanks for your comments and your suggested action to bring about positive change.
Just because someone has the right to do something, doesnt make it right.
“I think our houses and our block has been devalued because our street is not as pretty as it was. . . . It feels shameful,” DiPasquale said in an e-mail to the Richmond Times-Dispatch a month later.
I have to echo DiPasquale’s comment. Because the tree was on the corner of 22nd and Leigh it has impacted the 2100 and 2200 Blocks of Leigh, and the 500 and 600 Blocks of North 22nd Streets. The streetscape is now so different and barren, and not to mention the loss of all the envirnonmental benefits a tree brings to the table.
It appears the owner had a right to take a healthy historic tree down, but it appears the neighbors are paying the consequences through lost economic value and quality of life.
A new house is planned for the lot. Welcome to the neighborhood.
That’s a pretty small lot. How can you build a house and save the tree?
Has anyone asked the Owner to simply plant another tree when construction is complete instead of nailing him/her to the old one?
other mike,
While the lot is small, it is shaped a little like a pizza with the grand tree sitting at the point of the pizza (along the sidewalk). It was at the best location on the lot as not to impact construction. There were other trees that were taken down on the lot, and although it was a shame, a case could be made to take them down in order to build a house.
This historic tree should have been saved or at least it should have been given a chance to survive. With proper caution with construction, I believe the tree would have continued to thrive at that location. The tree was there when the owners purchased the lot. They said the tree would be saved. Up until the last minute, there was an opportunity to change the course of events, but the owner chose to ignore neighborhood concerns.
Planting a new tree is nice, but you can’t plant a 100 year old tree. I have to wonder if the economic and environmental loss to the neighborhood was even considered in the decision to take down the historic tree?
I dont think anyone wants to nail the owners to the old stump. I just think we need to raise awareness of the value of the urban forest and the civic responsibility we have when we own large trees or purchase a lot with historic trees on them.
Taking down the tree on the corner of 22nd and Leigh Street was a personal loss. I pruned and cared for that tree over the last 19 years and it anchored that corner the whole time, providing shade, clean air and all the other benefits a grand old tree provides.
In memory of the tree at the corner or N22nd and East Leigh.
I stood and watched the world go by,
I saw history in the making.
Wind through my branches gently sighed,
As WW1 was breaking.
And as I grew in strength and height,
I saw men come and go,
In times of peace and times of blight,
more than you’ll ever know.
I thought my spot right here was set,
As an old wise wizen tree,
Strong and sound, I posed no threat,
To land nor man nor beast.
I offered shade, I cleansed the air,
A landmark, bold and fine,
A signpost for the traveller,
Never marred by rot or decline.
My only crime was in my height,
Which could be remedied,
But now I lie, a lifeless stump,
For all the world to see.
My graceful limbs will now be burned,
I offer shade no more,
To creatures who called me home
Will mourn me – that’s for sure.
So what of man, what does he now
Want with the extra land?
To build another empty house
To fit a large demand?
I’m not condoning the removal of the tree, but anyone who has had to pay to have a tree removed from their property knows that it can cost thousands of dollars. In the case of this 100 year old tree, it must have been in the thousands.
It doesn’t seem like the owners were hasty in the removal of the tree considering the cost. They must have had a compelling reason for the removal, otherwise they could have saved themselves a lot of money.
Shame on me too. Of course, I normally work through my lunch hour – and come in early or stay late quite often…. oh yeah, weekends too. But wait, I’m not a state employee, so that must completely excuse me for not posting only during the hours of noon and 1pm on workdays, right?
Bill Conkle:
You said,
“The City does need better tree orninances to enhance and protect the urban forest. Currently the Shade Tree Commission is inactive. There is a movement to rejuvenate the Commission and begin to address the many tree issues in the City. I support any effort to raise the awareness of the value of the urban forest and I think you are right that it should be an issue in the City Council and Mayoral elections.”
You’ve also said, in regard to the Dog Park,
“The beauty of this project is the Community’s willingness to develop a grass-roots organization… It is a wonderful example of a citizen/government partnership to address a community need.”
Since you’re kind of the self designated “tree dude,” why don’t you follow through with your obvious passion here and head up an initiative to create an ordinance to preserve our historic urban trees?
Put your money were your mouth is.
This evening I had a talk with the family of the owners of the lot and we exchanged the reasons why the decision was made to take down the tree at the corner of 22nd and Leigh Street. While I still disagree passionately about the decision, I also understand that people can look at the same situation differently. Neighbors don’t always do exactly what we would hope they would do. I think there were a lot of extenuating circumstances that led to the decision to take the tree down, and I think everyone agrees that if circumstances were different, perhaps a different outcome would have resulted.
The owners want to plant a new tree and be good neighbors. They are good people and will bring so many positive things to the neighborhood. In the end, it is more important to maintain positive relationships in the neighborhood than to harbor a grudge over something that nobody can change.
I am hoping that this event will raise awareness of the value of the urban forest and lead to changes in how the City and her citizens make decisions, and I pledge to work toward that end.
I am glad that I had a talk with the owners of the tree and I am hoping we can move forward with our efforts to green the neighborhood.
” had a talk with the owners of the tree and I am hoping we can move forward with our efforts to green the neighborhood”
Bill:
I wished a good number of people on this board would act this way. Good for you and the Owner to act like adults and come up with a beneficial solution.
While I agree that talking to neighbors is always the best solution to resolve a problem, it took Bill Conkle five posts on this thread complaining about the tree removal before he talked to the neighbors about it and came to some kind of understanding.
On thread #26 he says “It appears the owner had a right to take a healthy historic tree down, but it appears the neighbors are paying the consequences through lost economic value and quality of life.
A new house is planned for the lot. Welcome to the neighborhood.”
Maybe I’m reading this wrong, but that sounds sarcastic to me. Now, suddenly “they” are good people, etc.
Also, why do all of Bill Conkle’s posts sound like he running for something? Enough with the stump speeches (no pun intended).
He should have had a conversation with the owners from the get go. That would have been the neighborly thing to do.
Working with a non-profit group in Philadelphia that has blended many of these environmental and quality of life issues into an agenda sorted by 10 policy actions-goals (sort of like Richmond’s, ACORN but a bit more expansive). Here is their web site.
http://www.nextgreatcity.com/actions
Thanks for the link Bob. I think a similar strategy for Richmond could be effective. Can I count on your vote? We really miss you guys in the neighborhood.
Norma Jean: You made a good point. Talking to neighbors is the best way to resolve a problem. And I was sarcastic in post #26. Now can I get your vote?
Interesting article in this week’s STYLE about Rachel Flynn, the new Community Development Director. In it there was a statement:”Research shows a mature shade tree in front of a home adds about $35,000 to the home’s value. Trees also reflect the beam of streetlights onto the street instead of into the sky, where it adds to light polution. A canopy of trees along the street helps create a sense of place, calms traffic, forestalls erosion and cleans the air. Flynn and (Tyler) Potterfield begin planning a tree audit, but she is still worried about one thing. What if two neighbors have a dispute about whether a tree needs to come down? Potterfield assures her there’s a process to negotiate such disputes. ‘So neighbors could potentially protest?’ Flynn asks. ‘Yes’ Potterfield says. ‘Good'”
Thanks Bill for sharing that portion of the Style article. If you look around at urban neighborhoods across the country that are most desireable and hold their value, you will also find mature shade trees lining their streets. Union Hill suffers with a lack of mature trees and it is difficult to see any lost. $35K is a lot of money, but all the other benefits are priceless.
I wrote to norm about becoming a tree steward … sounds like my “key to the city” thank you to whoever posted that. It may just change my life, along with just a few thousand Old Growth Trees