New Haven Independent

Posted by: Nan Bartow | April 24, 2009 7:43 PM

I fully support new city laws to protect our stately New Haven trees in the future. Thank you, Alfreda Edwards, Marjorie Shansky, Anstress Farwell, Chris Ozyck, Delores Colon, and Moti Sandman for taking the lead and for supporting the St. Ronan-Edgehill neighbors and activists who are in mourning for their newly cut neighborhood trees at Albertus Magnus College. We definitely need to amend the city's zoning ordinances with respect to trees. We are planting new young trees in New Haven all the time. However, we need to respect and protect the mature trees which have graced our neighborhoods for the past 50 to 100 years or more.

Posted by: anon | April 24, 2009 8:33 PM

Trees are immensely important to a city. A citywide tree coalition would be a very good thing. Maybe start a petition for a million new trees in New Haven (regionally) by 2020.

Posted by: fhgurl | April 24, 2009 10:24 PM

I'm so glad this is being discussed - not happy about the way the state in its infinite wisdom cut down the trees along the highway above Middletown Ave, near Front St. Makes me sad every time I pass near there.

Posted by: Bill | April 25, 2009 7:07 AM

I used to have 3 trees in front of my house. After they were cut down I was asked if I wanted them replaced and said no. Trees are dirty and are not GREEN unless they are in a forest. The amount of energy to maintain trees is enormous. In the fall they drop their leaves and require people with gas powered machines and trucks to pick them up. The drop dirty particles all year long.
If you like to look at trees get a picture of one.

Posted by: robn | April 26, 2009 9:01 AM

BILL,

You don't know what you're talking about.

Trees absorb CO2 and give off oxygen. They mitigate water runoff, provide shade, dampen high storm winds....look good.

Here's a really insane idea...if you're so concerend about the amount of fossil fuels used to maintain a tree...then don't use any...use a rake and make a compost pile in your backyard. You'll meet your green goals and lose some weight.

Posted by: jawbone | April 26, 2009 10:51 AM

Wow, Bill. Yer getting all Soylent Green on us. Please go out and hug a tree.

Posted by: Streever | April 26, 2009 6:59 PM

I am curious--do we know if the trees were diseased or not still? The college had initially said they had to be removed because they were riddled with disease. Is that true or not? Has anyone confirmed?

I love trees & think we should do what we can when we can to protect them. Public works is ripping the bark off of trees all over the City, right now, and I don't see any coalitions forming about that. What's going on? Let's make sure we prevent future damage now, while we still can.

Posted by: robn | April 26, 2009 9:19 PM

hey... we've got laws saying that you can't drive too fast because you'll probably kill somebody.... we've got laws saying you can't build buildings too tall or too close to each other because you'll block your neighbor's daylight...we've got laws saying you can't drop poison into the water supply because, well, thats just plain stupid...why not have a law requiring everybody to have a few trees on their property...isn't breathing oxygen part of the "general welfare" mentioned in the Constitution????

Posted by: Ali | April 27, 2009 10:20 AM

I'm all for trees but don't look forward to the day when I have to get permission and go to the zoning board to take down a tree that very well may be about to fall on my house or worse, onto my family or neighbors.

Rather than focus on what people can and can not do on their property, how about focusing on street trees and the like?

Posted by: ROBN | April 27, 2009 4:38 PM

ALI,

I know what you mean and I wouldn't want everybody meddling in my business....however I consider myself responsible and thoughtful, which a lot of people aren't...

Maybe its a matter of scale...if you're about to cut down a bunch of healthy trees or a healthy huge old tree, it affects people around you. Maybe it would be reasonable to at least let neighbors state objections. Zoning variance requests are mailed to neighbors within a certain radius to see if there are any objections and they could do the same with large scale tree felling. Right now I think that before public trees are cut (for whatever reason, theres a notice posted on the tree itself...so theres sort of a precedent.

Posted by: Chris O | April 27, 2009 6:56 PM

I doubt there is any Arborist or even a tree professional involved in the Arborcide at Albertus. They cut down healthy oaks in an area where people don't walk or hang out, the Hemlocks may have had Wooly Adalgid (easily treated) but were not going to fall on anyone. But the dead and hazard trees litter the campus. The two most notable are the dead tall pine were student practice athletics and the the dying dead maple left in the line of Hemlocks.
Streever- Every street tree in New Haven is protected by the current laws. They must be posted for removal, and if anyone disagrees within a period of time (two weeks I think) Then a hearing is held with the City tree warden (Christy Hass).
FGURL- The ones by the highway are cut for the billboards for highest pecuniary value. A lot of people want to change that line in the State regs but the billboard lobby is strong.

Posted by: Ali | April 27, 2009 7:14 PM

ROBN- Yes, you're right, the scale thing does matter. I also suppose my assumption is that when homeowners take trees down, it usually is for a good reason, after all it isn't cheap! (perhaps the exception being the copper beech incident, but there will always be people doing awful things with their property).

My question about an "ordinance" is just this - where should/do property rights begin and end? Trees are great, fantastic, important but is this a realistic and good thing to enforce? Maybe we should fine people who have turf-grass lawns - they are about as bad as trees are good. And what would happen if neighbors objected to a tree being taken down - do they take legal responsibility for damage should it occur? Just some things I'm wondering about - is an ordinance the best way to solve this?

As far as "public" trees go, it seems that at least street trees get signs put on them sometimes months in advance as a form of notification. Seems like something is in place for those at least and I'm not sure what else really is needed.

Posted by: Kevin Ewing | April 27, 2009 8:39 PM

Chris,

Didn't Rell introduce legislation earlier this year or late last year trying to remove billboards because they are a hazard for drivers? Might be an opportunity to combine the two objectives.