RECENT COMMENTS
Gustavo S. on Missing this fella? Updated!
Eric S. Huffstutler on New sidewalk at Clay and 26th Streets
Eric S. Huffstutler on Missing this fella? Updated!
Eric S. Huffstutler on Old water tower is coming down
Eric S. Huffstutler on then it happens to you...
Eric S. Huffstutler on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
scheduled for removal, not replacement
08/27/2008 6:55 AM by John M
In the most recent edition of richmond.com’s Ask the Mayor, Mayor Wilder essentially explains that, short of the $50 Adopt-a-Tree program, the city does not have a plan for replacing the trees that it removes from our urban forest.
Seems to me one could plant a tree for much cheaper all by his or her lonesome 🙂 That’s what I did.
I think the $50 adopt-a-tree program is a bargain, especially if you have a nightmarish tree well, e.g. one in which all misery of urban detritus has been deposited and requires a pick-axe to penetrate.
In the last 3 years I’ve participated in the program, and I find the city contractor has done a good job of digging the crap out of the tree well, and replacing it with top soil.
The city program plants good-size young trees (5-6 feet tall). Which means the hole has to be appropriately large for the root ball…more back-breaking digging.
And they give you a free gator-bag ta-boot!
Of course, some folks with multiple tree wells to fill can find a way to do it cheaper. Especially since the city will give each taxpayer only one $50 tree per year.
For the labor alone, it’s a good deal.
It is a good deal, but $50 for a tree is beyond the budget for many people, and absentee or commercial landlords are not as involved as homeowners. Leaving it to the residents to replace the trees that are removed means that low-income areas of the neighborhood will not have the same tree cover as more affluent areas. If these are city trees on city land, a more equitable plan for replacement needs to be implemented.
john_m, i TOTALLY agree that if the city takes a tree down, they ought to replace it…they’re not off the hook simply ’cause the adopt a tree program is available.
plus, the stump that big tree tagged for removal is gonna be HUGE. hope the contractor taking down the tree grinds that out, too.
my previous post was simply to encourage folks who do have the $means and perhaps not the time/strength to plant a tree to take advantage of the adopt-a-tree program.
Wilder’s response: “Nevertheless, the City’s Urban Forestry Division (UFD) is challenged by limited resources and a tree inventory exceeding 150,000 trees.” is irritating. While I don’t hold Wilder personally responsible for these limited resources, someone somewhere in the city’s administration is responsible. I have watched many many times the city’s “limited resources†at work. Just this year there was a pipe break under the sidewalk down the street from my house. The city sent 5 trucks, another truck with some kind of equipment in it and there were probably 8-10 men “working” on this issue for close to half a day. Well, perhaps I would say 1-2 men worked with the others standing around watching and talking with each other. I don’t claim to be all that knowledgeable about how the Department of Public Works functions but, to me, it doesn’t look like they have limited resources. Perhaps if they fired the men standing around and not doing the work, then perhaps they could free up some additional $$ in the budget. I’m quite sure that this one situation that I happened to witness is the norm and not the exception. Limited resources indeed! I no longer have to wonder why!
There have been numerous informal pushes in the neighborhood to repopulate tree wells on various blocks. If you buy in bulk from a rural nursery, you can get great deals (sidebar: please, no bradford pears).
Until we get the City to pony up for trees (which we should vigilantly keep pushing), our best options are either (a) using the adopt-a-tree program or (b) banding together on a block by block basis to keep new trees coming.
All of us deserve trees and sidewalks, whether we live on P Street or Libby Terrace… let’s let all these candidates know we think so.
I share “neighbor’s” view on both the personal responsibility and bradford pear fronts.
I know we all love our city, but, let’s face it, if residents on each block wait for the city to plant our trees we’ll be treeless until kingdom come. SEW’s neighbor refused to wait and did just what “neighbor” suggests: he bought trees in bulk and planted them throughout Union Hill.
We need more of that kind of activism all over the city.
Would people in Church Hill support a special 50 dollar fee on their taxes for trees? Probably not, but I would. It is like a homeowners association fee, but functions much better. Considering the 2000 some of us already spend, or more a year in taxes, 50 more is a drop in the bucket, especially when it is spread over 12 months. I think our City Council should get behind this. Let a local group manage the funds – selected by Church Hill residents.
Journiyin, that’s a great idea! I would support something like that myself! While you and I (and many I know) would support such a fee, there are probably many others that would not. Even though it’s only a little over $4 per month when spread out over the course of a year, I’m confident many would have issue with that. Given the fact that some elderly/disabled residents are living on a fixed income, even just $50 a year may be a hard pill to swallow. Then, of course, there are the people in the area that just don’t really give a damn about the neighborhood and would balk at the fee. Not sure how a tax or fee levied by the city then managed by a group other than the city government would work…probably some legal issues involved there as well.
Matt C did mention my neighbor who bought trees in bulk last fall. I think they came out to be about $40 each if memory serves me correctly. That really is probably the best alternative if you can get a group of folks together who live on the same block or surrounding area. That’s turns out to be cheaper than the adopt-a-tree thing…of course, the back-breaking work that Union Hill RVA mentions above would still be required based on the tree well.
Just curious but I was looking at the UFD site for the adopt-a-tree thing and they said the trees installed where something like a $200 value? Is this correct? I’ve been to nurseries this past summer and have seen many trees that are prices way less than that which would serve as great tree well trees. That just seems to be steep to me. If the city is spending $200 a pop on the trees, no wonder there are limited resources…
Have to agree with Magneto and neighbor about the Bradford Pears.
They are nice trees on a boulevard or on a large meadow-like lot, but they are terrible urban landscaping trees.
I think allure with this species is that they grow rapidly and are very full and shapely.
The downside is that they devour the streetscape and one’s house. They are unstable in storms/winds and tend to split very easily. They also really stink in early spring when the blossoms emerge!
Bradford pears are a terrible choice for use in our urban community.
Good example is the property at the south corner of 21st and E. Broad. The yellow house with the black shutters. If you recall, there were two Bradford Pears that were planted there in the small from garden about 6-7years ago and they grew to completely engulf the front of the house. There was a storm earlier this year and took them both out. Glad nothing was damaged and no one was hurt, but it was good that they were removed.
I’m sure the same thing will happen to the two that remain on the side of that house.
AMEN to what you said SEW concerning city workers “on the job”!!!
Only a month or so ago they sectioned off part of the block for sidewalk repair (bricks). I counted 5 trucks along with heavy equipment come in and park. All they did was replace an 8×8 foot section of brick sidewalk in front of one residence. Something that 1 or 2 trucks could have done! And it wouldn’t be the first time people on our block people have seen city trucks with workers just sitting in them doing nothing!
As for the tree replacements… why do they outline places to plant trees in newly laid brick sidewalks if they don’t plant something there? And I know I have seen places in our neighborhood where there are several of those green bagged new trees in a row where old trees were taken down. I doubt that someone would have sprung for trees along an entire block?
Eric
SEW, et al. I agree about the legal issues about a group managing the funds, but if it was a group of locally elected or appointed officials I think the legalese would work itself out. Also, about the 4 dollars a month – hasn’t Wilder or the Council been throwing around an idea to reduce the property tax lately? Well instead, leave it alone and just transfer the money necessary to accomodate the tree money. Also, since some trees are living or standing already, some or a lot of this money could go to maintenance, adding more bricked sidewalks – and even BURYING the UTILITIES finally. Creative spending is something that this City needs.
What are the particulary bleak areas with no trees that really stick out? Marshall east of 21st comes to mind. So does Marshall across from Chimbo Elementary (but it would need tree wells) … and 23rd north of Cedar. Really, most of Jefferson Avenue to 21st Street, too (excepting of course the new trees at Jefferson Park). Much of Jeff Ave could use the same treatment 25th Street got.
Perhaps in lieu of a $50.00 fee, the neighborhood associations could pool donations and work with Norm at Urban Forestry to get approval for tree plantings in some of these bald areas. Where there are wells already, it’s just a matter of a strong back. Where there are no tree wells, well… there’s where the City has to come in.
Venable Street is in sore need of trees/tree wells too, especially from Mosby to Pink Street. The energetic teens at the Temple of Judah (the Saturday car-washers) might be able to help with planting.
Of course, the city will have to put in some tree wells along the Venable sidewalks, first.
One thing another tree-hugging neighbor reminded me about lately was the watering issue. Even if the civic assoc. donates trees/planting, it is essential for property owners to water said trees. We’ll have to do some door knocking and explaining to the neighbors who benefit from our tree planting efforts.
This is a good look at the signs that they are now placing on trees and for citizens to know that trees are being considered to be cut down. Thus people are informed and aware of what is going on and not just coming home to a stump.
Also the trimming of tree by power companies is being better regulated by the City now with policies and procedures – as a result of citizens input and civic organizations advocacy.
We can make a difference!
JJ
The parks are loosing trees too. While this $50 a tree program does not apply to park trees, it is possible to donate money to the parks department to buy trees for a specified park. I was told that the parks department generally buys more mature trees at the $150 to $250 price tag, so this would be a more sizeable contribution. However, if a handful of people donate $50 each, they can still make a difference.
If there is interest in this, let me know and I will see what I can put together.
friendsofchimborazo@gmail.com
There seems to be a full-on assault on existing, established trees around here lately. It will take 25-75 years to “replace” some of the beautiful trees being felled – so they are for all practical purposes “irreplacable.”
Established trees add not only beauty, but real value, to a neighborhood (I honestly think that major portion of the Fan’s appeal / high home prices is in its lovely tree lined streets, for example)…
What the – is going on?
In response to Eric’s comments about sidewalk repairs- RUBBER SIDEWALKS.COM
Rubber sidewalks are being used in D.C., Buffalo, and many other cities- why not Richmond?
Of course we want to keep our beautiful historic brick sidewalks but where tree roots conflict- please consider rubber sidewalks.
http://rubbersidewalks.com/pdf/Rubbersidewalks%20-%20New%20Products.pdf
Looks like they make paver bricks, too
Hi,
Personally, I’d be in favor of getting rid of a lot of these old relics. If someone would come up with a way to replace these overgrown elm trees, now that would be great. There’s an elm tree in front of one of my rental properties here in church hill. I’ve complained to the city to trim it back, there are dead limbs etc.
I’ve complained over and over, and nothing is ever done. I suppose the city would rather rebuild someone’s house after it falls.
These overgrown huge trees have no place in a four feet by six feet tree well. Crape myrtles are beautiful, dogwoods, and the like.
Another point, it’s assumed that everyone who received one of these trees in front of their houses, wanted them.
There was no questionaire, etc. asking me if I wanted another tree in front of my house I live in. However, I’m expected to keep it watered and cared for.
Not all of us are tree huggers, I think every tree in church hill (in a tree-well) over eight feet tall should be taken down and replaced with a flowering tree of some sort.
Removing the much older trees are just not that simple and not sure but believe may be protected by the Arbor Day Foundation? As for costs of replanting and time involved to bring one back to the original felled tree size… here is something from one of the Arbor blogs concerning NYC:
“…The Urban Forestry Coordinator of NY City charged people $40,000 if they wanted to cut down a 33″ diamter maple tree. This is how much must be invested in new plantings in order to someday have a 33″ maple. People who have never planted a tree have zero concept of how difficult it is to end up with a tree that large. It’s very sad, but the Arbor Day Foundation sends millions of 6-12 inch trees to our members every season and these people understand the incredible care and patience required to turn a small seedling into a tree. ”
Eric
Ron,
I have to disagree with you on some points.
Personally, I feel that older trees in the area add to the character and beauty of our neighborhood. I have to say I would hate to see all trees over 8 feet tall in Church Hill removed to be replaced with Crepe Myrtles and Dogwoods. While both flowering trees are beautiful; the tall, stately, older trees add a presence to the area that would take ages to recoup should these tress be removed.
I would not consider myself a tree hugger, however, I understand the time and care it takes for a tree to get that large and the years of growth that are required…that just seems like a lot to destroy just because a tree seems to large for a tree well to me .
You mentioned you have rental property on the hill. Do you actually live up here as well?
Ron…
What do you have against grand older trees? They give shade, are a wind break, and add to “being green” for energy efficiency because of the above. They add beauty especially as a canopy over streets when pruned properly (unlike the butchering done by utility companies). You butchered probably one of the oldest standing trees in Church Hill because you didn’t want the shade over your patio then never used it. By doing so made it unstable and eventually split causing property damage – including ours.
The tree you speak of is actually in front of Spencer’s house, not yours and you can see is being protected instead of being butchered – again, one of the original Church Hill trees so doubt it will be going anywhere.