NA Confidential: File under: Senseless atrocities.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

File under: Senseless atrocities.

I counted five stumps. Can anyone remember the last time this city planted a tree?

21 comments:

dan chandler said...: While we can debate specific numbers, here's one economist's estimates of the effect of trees on property values.

Price Increase Condition:

2% - mature yard trees (greater than 9-inch dbh)

3-5% - trees in front yard landscaping

6-9% - good tree cover in a neighborhood

10-15% - mature trees in high-income neighborhoods

(Source: http://www.naturewithin.info/Policy/Hedonics_Citations.pdf)

Now, I'm not saying these calculations are the final, unbiased result. However, before we dismiss the potential of millions of dollars in lost economic value that come with a mature canopy, I want to see a counterargument than's more detailed than a unnuanced dismissal.; 12:03 PM
Christopher D said...: Did they cut the 20' tall trees down to lift the new steeple up about 40'?

I mean isnt the point of a crane to lift things over other things?; 12:37 PM
Randy said...: I remain completely unconvinced that this was necessary.

Mayor England gave his personal permission to the culprits to remove the trees. Then someone thought that maybe legalities should be followed, so on Tuesday, the malefactors informed the Board of Public Works and Safety that it would be completely impossible to erect the steeple without removing TWO trees.

The approved plan, until Tuesday, was for Duke Energy to drop power lines for a day on the Spring Street frontage so the steeple could be lifted up. When Duke was unable to meet the villains' schedule, they elected to shut down 8th Street and convert the trees to stumps.

The scoundrels then proposed to take down an entire half-block of trees so they could later (clock starts right now) plant replacement saplings with a uniform look.

The Board of Public Works and Safety acquiesced, giving permission on Tuesday of this week, apparently without demanding compensation AND replacement, and certainly doing things the New Albany Way - do the deed fast and quiet so that the public interest can't be represented by the public, and then lament the loss later.

Except for their unreasoned haste (why was it necessary to do this NOW?) and disregard for the public, except for their belief that the trees belong to the church, the contractors followed the rules. They did not go before the tree board (nonexistent), but the blame for this falls squarely on Mayor England and his BPWS.

I will thank Matt Dennison for returning my call with great promptness and can report that he was unapologetic about their decision to remove the trees.; 1:00 PM
Christopher D said...: Looking down the street, I was excited about the Crane in place and ready to lift, but now realizing the trees had been cut down, its a little bittersweet.; 1:09 PM
G Coyle said...: Dan, can't someone in the legal profession do something pro bono to help with the absolutely senseless (and costly) slaughter of what was and should be a common good, the urban canopy? I'd be happy to front it, but I can never find a attorney who wants to sue City Hall. I assume that's because they all work for city hall? Know anyone. By the way it is a crime in Massachusetts to take down any tree over 20 years old without permission of local govt. Will St Mary's now pay the city extra for the additional storm water run off those trees are no longer around to respirate? See, this why the whole - let's borrow millions for an unsustainable sewer/storm water system is such a joke. People are simply too ignorant, too greedy, or just down right stubborn to stop shooting themselves and the rest of the town in the foot.; 2:08 PM
The Big Opus said...: Next time someone wants to cut down a tree we call Jack Gescheidt.

www.treespiritproject.com; 3:58 PM
dan chandler said...: I think this whole episode underscores the need for a citywide, systematic approach to its trees.

I've not yet read the tree board ordinance. Personally, I'd enjoy a future post detailing what a tree board can and cannot do, along with other options for long term planning with regard to the city's trees.; 4:00 PM
dan chandler said...: Gina, I'm sure you could find plenty of attorneys to sue the city if you had a good case. I'm just not sure there's a good case here. Objectionable does not necessarily equal either illegal or actionable.; 4:07 PM
Jeff Gillenwater said...: For the record, the Spring Street trees have been felled as well.; 4:38 PM
G Coyle said...: "Objectionable does not necessarily equal either illegal or actionable."

Dan, I live 2 blocks from the tree felling, we are already having storm flooding problems in our neighborhood. Main Street in front of my house is a flash flood zone because all the F*&king trees have been cut!! 1+1=2 here, it really does. AT the same time I'm installing rain barrels and water garden and low flow HE applicances, ie investing in the future, my neighbors are free to pollute in any fashion, whether it's noise, light, truck volume, motorcycle rallys, asphalt paving-over insult to injury downtown.

From an economic point of view, why should I pay more and more for storm water problems and sewer problems when their is obviously no cost to anyone, but us, for all the hideous extraction that people call economic activity here.

Why invest someplace where your investment won't be protected? That's been true here my whole life, it's been my family's mantra as they've migrated east and north the last 50 years.

Also re. Tree board. Ha Ha. I know a handful of people here who even know what trees are native.
Back to endemic poverty and low educational standards and the extraction economy.; 5:23 PM
G Coyle said...: Dan, why would the city enforce a tree ordinance, if there were one? We can't get substandard housing inspected yet? Enforcement is the point of suing. To force enforcement! Remember re-districting...

When you have to sue the gov't to do it's job, well, to me it's corruption. Political "favors" kind of corruption.; 5:26 PM
dan chandler said...: Gina, those problems are political, not legal.; 5:29 PM
dan chandler said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5:37 PM
dan chandler said...: In other words,

it's not a crime to have bad policy,

it's not unconstitutional to have bad policy, and

it's not tortious to have bad policy.

Someone benefits from a current regime. Not hiring someone to plan for systematic tree maintenance and planting benefits those who'd rather have lower taxes/fees. Massive bridge projects benefits people who build bridges and other real estate interests.

The people who want lower taxes and the people who build bridges are working to see that politicians sympathetic to their causes are elected. If you want a different political result, just about the only way you'll achieve that is by doing a better job politicking.

Start deciding now who you're going to support, how much you're going to donate, how may doors you're going to knock on, how well you're going to organize, how many people you're going to register and how many friends you're going to persuade to write big checks to campaigns.; 5:38 PM
RememberCharlemagne said...: The city of New Albany has a tree board, have money, but they have not met yet.

New Albany was a Tree City USA city during England's first term.

After he left office no one continued the effort.

One major problem of getting that distinction is a city must devote 2% of their general fund to a urban forestry program.

I don't see that happening anytime soon but there are other cities that have great programs that New Albany could follow as examples.

There are many resources to help fund a group.

The Indiana Department of Urban Forestry’s deadline for grants is in June I think their may still be time.

A tree city wide tree group can be a great non-political group to form.

It hearts to see those mature trees cut down.

And Dan we have very good tree ordinances on the book now.; 6:24 PM
Randy said...: Storm water, drainage, flood control - I'll bet we've got 2% of our budget dedicated to surface water flooding. Maybe not general fund, but I'd be very surprised if the "Tree City" designation gave a rat's patootie about where the local money comes from.; 6:45 PM
B.W. Smith said...: G, the state of Indiana does not permit suits against the state for non-enforcement of the law (i.e. they have "sovereign immunity"). Your only recourse is the ballot box.; 11:26 PM
RememberCharlemagne said...: If you look at it that way Randy you have a point but is it sincere.

I would prefer actual funds and trees in the ground than the distinction of "Tree City."

I think you would too.

John R seems more concerned about tree maintenance then tree planting. Sometimes I feel that John has been at his position to long and has lost enthusiasm for certain things.; 11:48 PM
dan chandler said...: It takes 40 years to grow a mature hardwood. It takes 40 seconds to cut it down.

I want a mechanism that protects our trees from 10 out of 10 of the next administrations. Nine out of 10 isn't good enough.

Ideally, I'd like to see a new private, not-for-profit organization secure and enforce a conservation easement over our trees. Relying on constant political support across generations isn't good enough.; 12:02 AM
G Coyle said...: Dan, I will help with that non-profit anyway I can, even be the lead organizer. We have a "shade tree ordinance in Massachusetts" that is a good example of citizens taking ownership of old hardwood and shade trees which other parts of the country recognize lower costs for energy, storm drainage, not to mention the enhanced property values a mature hardwood canopy adds to a town. Heck, the Cherokee Triangle historic district has a good rule about this. New Albany is so stupid it's made itself into a ghetto and the loss of trees is one glaring example.; 10:31 AM
edward parish said...: Yeah, when my company paid for them back in the day.; 10:10 PM