New Haven Independent

Posted by: Nan Bartow | June 21, 2006 9:36 AM

Beaver Hill is a green island of historic houses and mature old trees that are nurtured by caring families. We strongly resent inscrupulous investors like Dan Stein who buy property only to make a quick profit by cutting down the huge venerable trees in order to erect in their place a quick house to sell. We will oppose these investors whenever we can. They bring destruction into our neighborhood. Nan Bartow

Posted by: kathy h | June 21, 2006 9:54 AM

I hate it when property owners cut down trees instead of trying to incorporate them in the design of the proposed structures. But Mr. Stein has a right to build as he wishes, as long as he does so according to codes and regulations.

Why do neighbors who already have built up their own lots think somebody else's has to stay empty to preserve the character of their neighborhood? Seems hypocritical to me, unless they are offering to buy the property from Mr. Stein for what it's worth.

Posted by: Francine Caplan | June 21, 2006 10:34 AM

Talk about cutting off his nose to spite his face!! He is making his properties worthless. I know that the worms under that tree are nicer and have more feeling for this neighborhood than poor,ugly,angry Stein. We are glad he never did move in here because he is not one of us. He is just a thug. What comes around....

Posted by: Lovebabz | June 21, 2006 11:26 AM

Mr Stein cut down a 100 year old tree and it was stunning and breath-taking to see someone destroy God's handiwork, however, we will not be moved, nor will we allow this shameful act to shake our faith in moving forward.

Posted by: sam | June 21, 2006 2:33 PM

In case the neighborhood is not aware, stein bought the house to flip, however now that prices have gone down, and stein made his own alterations to interior of his home and they didnt work out, and he is not physcally well, and rumor has it he is getting divorced, he realized he had to make a quick buck in order to make save his "profits from his flip".So he cut down the tree to let the opposing neighbors know- I am going to fight you till th end. Good luck stein-your going to need it when you pack up and move out.

Posted by: kathy h | June 21, 2006 5:10 PM

Sweet Jesus!
It never ceases to amaze me how some people can take a matter shaded with self-interest (enjoyment of the beauty of a tree on an undeveloped city lot near their houses) and cast it into a moral issue for which their side is benevolent, righteous, and public-minded and the other side is ugly, selfish, and ungodly. Perhaps we can nominate Beaver Hills as the next City Upon a Hill, shining like a beacon of environmental justice down on us all. Better yet, neighbors, why not take a keen look at yourselves before you continue casting stones? In a nation of laws even the ugly have rights.

Posted by: susan stone | June 23, 2006 12:04 AM

kathy, the tree is an endangered species...sweet jesus should have intervened.

Posted by: anonymous | June 23, 2006 9:29 AM

Everybody is missing the point here. He can cut down a tree on his own property and there is little you can do about it, but Daniel Stein (who incidentally agreed to pay $10,000 as a settlement agreement so that he wouldn't be prosecuted for acting as a mortgage broker without a license see: http://www.ct.gov/dob/cwp/view.asp?a=22-46&q=298982) is attempting to flout zoning ordinances to squeeze a second house (or who knows what) into his lot for profit. He can't do this without an allowance from the city, but he seems confident that he will be able to do it--given that tree removal isn't cheap. If you think taking down the tree is detrimental to the neighborhood, just wait to see what a new house could do to the property values.

As for the assertion by Kathy H. (who seems to be a personal friend of Mr. Stein) of hypocrisy, nobody has "built up" their lot on Colony Rd. for some time. The newest house on the road is probably 80+ years old and the lot in question is not "empty" as you imply. It has been sold as part of the property (including to Mr. Stein) associated with the house on the adjacent lot.

Posted by: kathy h | June 23, 2006 3:32 PM

To Anonymous:

Thank you for the clarifying note about the possible zoning problems facing Mr. Stein. That's exactly the kind of thing everybody needs to know when looking at how to resolve this matter. As to the allegation of my friendship with Mr. Stein, I can say I have never met him or any of the neighbors quoted in the news reports or posting to this site.

I continue to be astounded at the tone and content of the comments that were posted against Mr. Stein (with your post the exception). Such a sanctimonious approach does nothing for the neighbors' cause, and I suspect even hurts it in the eyes of those who will adjudicate the dispute. That vituperative chorus struck a nerve for me, reminding me of Tocqueville's admonition against the possible "tyranny of the majority" in a democracy.

Thanks again for the informative post.

Posted by: Another Anonymous Poster | June 24, 2006 1:01 AM

Gosh, Kathy, you speak of others’ "sanctimonious approach", yet here you sit in judgment of all those who post here. You speak of those who have posted as "self interested" and cast doubt on both their motives and their commitment to public service knowing nothing about those who live in this neighborhood. You applaud my Anonymous progenitor for his revelation of facts, but you certainly made no effort to uncover any of these facts before taking my neighbors to task. You speak of built up lots that, in fact, have not been altered for many, many years. It seems to me that you are every bit as guilty of sanctimony and self-satisfied righteousness as those you accuse.

That you should be astounded that people are upset and have spoken out of anger belies either great naivety or a complete lack of understanding of the situation. This is a man who bought a property and neglected it for an extended period of time, not due to lack of means but lack of will. While we strive to preserve and improve New Haven’s remaining assets (and our homes), he seeks only to profit from the hard work of others. He then asks for a zoning variance and has the gall to submit an application lacking a site plan that would likely contradict his assertion of hardship. An investor of Mr. Steins sophistication does neglect a detail like this by mistake. Then, while waiting for a rescheduled hearing, he proceeds to clear his property of an endangered tree in preparation for construction. Is it his right to do so? Certainly. Does that in any way justify deliberate provocation? There was absolutely no justifiable reason to have done this prior to the hearing other than to spite those opposing his "hardship" variance. Can you possibly see how this might evoke a "vituperative" response? By the way, congratulation on the big vocabulary – I had to look that one up!

For the record, I happen to agree that an informed, factual response to an issue such as this does far more good than emotional response. But your pedantic, condescending, smug contributions do little to evoke a thoughtful conversation. Since you’re such a fan of de Tocqueville, have a gander at this and see if it doesn’t sound like somebody we’ve discussed;

"In some countries the inhabitants…set too high a value upon their time to spend it on the interests of the community; and they prefer to withdraw within the exact limits of a wholesome egotism…�

See, I can quote French social theorists, too! It doesn’t make me right, but it does make me sound like an a** hole.

P.S. Environmental justice has nothing to do with the “environment� in an ecological sense. I rest assured that you and your massive ego will take the time to inform yourself before waxing authoritative again.

Posted by: tartanjug | June 25, 2006 10:01 AM

When people like Stein do not care about the people, neighborhood and living things (trees, animals that live in the trees) then what we are seeing is the rising up of a caring people against a form of tyranny. When you care about the house you buy, even if you are going to sell it and not move into it, why destroy the very things that are part of it and the neighborhood? That is: The lot itself with the large, beautiful and wondrous tree, the Copper Beech that gives it shade, that provides home to birds and wildlife and let's us all breathe better? The only reason is that we have an uncaring, absentee property owner whose belligerence will be his own greedy downfall.

Posted by: Lovebabz | June 25, 2006 1:36 PM

To Another Anonymous Poster--go head wit yo badd self! or translated, go ahead with your badd self. Translated further-- your response to Kathy H was well said! I daresay you echoed the sentiments of, I hope, the majority of the Beaver Hill neighors.

Posted by: Gretchen Pritchard | June 26, 2006 2:00 AM

Just to set the record straight: copper beech trees may be "rare" but they are not "endangered."

They are a cultivated variety of the English beech, and anybody who wants to plant one can track one down from a nursery, though not necessarily just by walking into any old nursery (hence the "rare.") I believe there are several in New Haven in places like Farnham Gardens and Edgerton Park. An old, beautiful spreading specimen such as Mr. Stein cut down is, of course, priceless; but there is nothing endangered about the species, which is not in any case native to North America.

Posted by: J Hart | June 26, 2006 11:04 AM

Gretchen:

Do you have any idea how long it takes a tree of this type to mature? I would like to plant a "replacement" on my lot, but am in need of rather rapid foliage coverage due to the neglect of the previous owner. I know that it would in no way controvert the loss imposed by Stein, but it feels like the right thing to do.

For those of who for whom this issue is still confounding or seems overblown, please understand that the old, mature foliage is part of what defines Beaver Hills. I encourage you to visit the neighborhood and see what it is that we are trying to protect. We have come now to a juncture at which Beaver Hills is losing many of its older tress to disease, age, and the reckless and selfish actions of others. We need to protect what we have and begin planting anew if future generations are to enjoy the benefits of plentiful greenspace.

Jonathon D. Hart

Posted by: honest abe | June 26, 2006 4:40 PM

Wow. Do these anonymous people think that if they insult and inflame and call respondents like Kathy H. names that they are doing something for the public good? They simply show what little regard they have for people that disagree with them.

Speaking of history, Anonymous,. . . the nasty writers of Beaver Hill (and by no means are all the writers this way, just a few) call to mind visions of a mob. Wouldn't they like to impose their views on everyone -- by force, if necessary! Absolutism sucks, especially when those who consider themselves the carriers of TRUTH are able to impose it on all the rest of us. Doesn't matter whether they are environmentalists, Stalinists, Republican Moral Majority types, or Taliban.

Congratulations Beaver Hill! Your supporters have disgraced you.

Posted by: kathy h | June 26, 2006 7:08 PM

Thanks Abe, whoever you are,

But you don't need to defend me. Anonymous (the one who calls me a bad name) is right that I don't know all the facts. I haven't been able to go to many community meetings for a while. With a newborn and two other children it's impossible to do more than read a bit of the newspaper each day, and that's NOT every day! But when a person reads an article, reads the comments, and has an opinion, especially one that differs from the majority of opinions being expressed, shouldn't she be able respond? I think so. And I think if a quote from the Bible, or Democracy in America by Tocqueville or anything from a history class at SCSU that she learned from, if anything like that occurs to the respondent, then she should be able to draw on it, even if the guy has a funny-sounding French name. Looking forward to when the Beaver Hillers start PLANTING some trees! That will be a fine sight.

Posted by: Nan Bartow | June 27, 2006 12:21 AM

Why Kathy H!! I'm surprised that you would think that community-minded residents of Beaver Hill do not plant trees. As a matter of fact, we not only plant them in our front and back yards as J Hart is doing to replace trees that were neglected by a previous careless owner, but we also volunteer our time to plant trees in our neighboring Beaver Pond Park. Between the volunteers at the Animal Shelter and the volunteers at our Greenspace area on the South Pond, we have, with the help of an intern from Urban Resources Initiative (URI), planted so far around 100 trees and continue to plant every week. Please come with your three children on Wednesday evenings from 6:00 to 8:00 PM. Roll up your sleeves and plant away with us. We'd love to have you and Dan Stein and anyone else help rebuild our local stock of trees, which help cool the city, filter the air we breathe, provide a habitat for wildlife, and beautify the neighborhood--all things that are important for the future of our environment and that of your children!

Posted by: Ned | June 27, 2006 8:05 AM

Liriodendron Tulipifera (Tulip tree) it is a native tree that grows six + feet per year (one of the tallest trees in the Eastern forests; it is mostly pest and disease free, with nice yellow fall foliage, and springtime flowers. Mr. Stein gets the poison ivy award for killing the tree; however, it's his property do with as he wishes. Does New Haven have a tree protection ordinance?

Posted by: J Hart | June 27, 2006 9:40 AM

Kathy, it's not a question of whether or not you have a right to voice your opinion - it's that you manage to express it in an insulting and rather belittling way. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Beaver Hills has been planting trees - and plants, and flowers, and erecting stone benches, mulching, clearing paths, etc. Walk on down to the end of Ellsworth Ave. and take a look at Beaver Pond Park. That's where you'll find a number of Beaver Hills residents giving their free time to improve the neighborhood and New Haven's public green spaces. Every Wednesday night, if I recall.



I understand if you do not have time to attend public meetings. Unfortunately I have missed far more than I have attended myself. I keep in touch by receiving community emails and participating in discussions. If you are not on the lists and would like to be, that can easily be arranged. This is an excellent opportunity for us all to become informed, ask questions, and have them answered.



Jonathon

Posted by: J Hart | June 27, 2006 9:50 AM

Ned, I don't know if it is in affect any longer, but New Haven had the first municipal tree ordinance in the United States. Based on what I have seen in my short time here, it is either no longer on the books or not enforced.



Tree ordinances are actually not terribly common, though I've seen some very reasonable protection ordinance applied with discretion with excellent results. If the ordinance is no longer in affect, maybe it is time to propose a new one. Surely it is in New Haven's best interests to protect our mature and historic foliage. After all, this is the Elm City, is it not?



Jonathon

Posted by: kathy h | June 27, 2006 10:24 AM

Thanks for the sincere invitation, Nan. Can't wait to meet all you folks who have been so even-handed and level-headed while engaging with your fellow citizens.

Posted by: tcs | June 27, 2006 5:16 PM

Kathy, Sounds like you think you've been even-handed and level-headed. Hmm. Why did you exclaim sweet jesus in your first lecture? Sounds pretty emotional to me.
Check out the tree just planted by the neighbors with the extra lot on the corner of ellsworth and dyer. They took a dead tree down last year and replaced it this spring. Get your facts straight Kathy before you criticize and judge. It's also a good lesson for mom to teach the kids.
As for whether or not the Copper Beech is truly "endangered" -- seems to me any healthy tree that is taken down for greed is endangered.

Posted by: ted | July 1, 2006 8:48 AM

I'm not a resident of Beaver Hills, but I've read all the above with interest. People can't get passed the tree issue and I can understand that. I have two very large trees in my front yard, and I would be heartbroken if the next owner decided to cut them down for any reason. But the bottom line is he'd have the right do to just that, as long as there were no laws declaring it illegal.

Besides all that, it's fascinating to see how a series of posts by people who disagree almost always leads down the path to an online version of a "flaming"/screaming match. In this case, "another anonymous reader" above, with his/her post dripping sarcasm and calling people names (as in "See, I can quote French social theorists, too! It doesn’t make me right, but it does make me sound like an a** hole."), tried to provide the match but did not succeed.

So, to "another anonymous reader", take it easy and take your name calling and sarcasm to another forum. I'm sick and tired of people hijacking (or in this case, trying to) online public discussions, intentionally or not.

And for the record, I don't see anything wrong with using long words or with referencing de Tocqueville, if they're not used to belittle the reader or listener. In my opinion, they were not used with that intent above, so it seems to me like another case of telling people they shouldn't use long words because that just sounds too educated...

Posted by: landelle | July 28, 2006 3:49 AM

Too bad about the Copper Beach. Of course, I read and also think of my own situation... I am a city home-owner with a 100+ year-old oak tree in my yard and only wish that I could afford to take mine down. While I love trees and find this one especially pleasing aesthetically and spiritually, its benefits are overshadowed by the massive anxiety I have in severe storms. Upon viewing the majestic speciman, more than one visitor has noted the very real threat to property and health which might ensue if a major limb or the whole tree were to fall. I've consulted a tree specialist and though the tree is healthy, the news is not heartening. Neighbors say how much it means to them, but they don't panic with every crack of lightening! I love big trees as much as the next tree-hugger, but for city neighborhoods with small lots, big trees aren't always great. What's a struggling home-owner to do?? Hope for the best. PS- Kudos to you Parks volunteers. I thank you. Truly, that is where NH's big trees belong.