Have You Improperly Trimmed Your Trees?
If you live in Charlotte, North Carolina, it could cost you $100 per branch.
Via Jessica Lalli, a Charlotte church has been fined $100 per branch for improperly trimming trees on their property! Brittany Penland writes in the Charlotte Observer:
"We always keep our trees trimmed back because you don't want to worry about them hanging down in the way," said Sales, a church member.The church was fined $100 per branch cut for excessive pruning, bringing the violation to $4,000.
"I just couldn't believe it when I heard about it," Sales said. "We trim our trees back every three years all over our property, and this is the first time we have been fined."
The fine will be dropped if the church replaces each of the improperly pruned trees, said Tom Johnson, senior urban forester for city of Charlotte Land Development Division.
...Charlotte has had a tree ordinance since 1978, and when trees are incorrectly pruned or topped, people can be subject to fines, Johnson said.
Trees planted as a result of the ordinance are subject to the fines if they are excessively trimmed or pruned. These include trees on commercial property or street trees. They do not include a private residence.
"The purpose of the tree ordinance is to protect trees," Johnson said. "Charlotte has always been known as the city of trees. When we take down trees, we need to replace these trees."
Individuals who would like to trim their trees should call the city foresters to receive a free permit to conduct the landscape work.
Foresters will then meet with the person receiving the permit and give instructions on how to properly trim their trees, Johnson said.
More insanity at the link.
Note to Charlotte: Here's how it works without laws, and without government spending. It starts with those people hissing about proper tree trimming in the comments over at the Charlotte Observer. Like Chastity Spurrier Roberts:
I am so happy that they are doing something about the "crape murder" that goes on in Charlotte. I worked in landscaping for years and it is disgusting to see what people do to these trees because they are ignorant. If you don't want a tree to grow 15' tall, then don't plant a tree that grows 30' tall! I've seen it so many times: people buying plants and installing them incorrectly, then butchering the plant like it's to blame. The plant does what it's meant to do - grow. Learn a little beforehand and these issues will never occur. It's called READING, people. You should try it sometime.
Chastity (and pardon my laughter at the fact that your name is, effectively, "Woman Who Does Not Spread Her Legs"), if you are concerned about proper tree trimming, you should feel quite free to spend your Saturdays campaigning for it, and creating an organization to help teach people how to do it the right way. Of course, it's much easier to just post hissy comments supporting public funds being used to attack people financially through yet another unnecessary and burdensome (and pretty disgusting) law.
When I bought my house I read the municipal code re trees before planing any. I know I'm a huge geek but it's a good thing I found out I can't plant anything in the genus salix before I put a weeping willow in the city's right of way. One thing I don't think many homeowners understand is that you don't own the first few feet between the sidewalk and your house. Most often, that is a public right of way subject to land use restrictions. I've got no opinion on ordinances covering an entire commercial property, but since the city is financially responsible for the maintenance of trees within the public right of way, I'm A OK with them limiting which trees can go in the ROW (they're spending my money after all.)
Anyway, if you want to avoid the wrath of the tree nazis, here is where i found my city's code: http://www.municode.com/
smurfy at June 1, 2011 9:51 AM
The fines should be waved though, since most non-landscape geeks have no idea these ordinances even exist. Fines should only be used on the knowing, egregious violators.
smurfy at June 1, 2011 10:04 AM
If Charlotte has always been known as the city of trees then why is this the first I'm hearing out it?
lujlp at June 1, 2011 10:30 AM
It sure does seem ridiculous, especially after the fact. I do agree with smurfy, about fining the knowing egregious violators.
A few years ago, we belonged to a country club. My husband saw the new landscaper lion-tailing the trees. This is where they strip out all of the lower branches and inner branches, leaving them bare while the outermost branches are left full. He told the landscaper that this was bad practice and left the trees week and vulnerable. The landscaper did not head my husband's advice. The next time a heavy wind came through, the trees were all blown over. They assessed each member more than $4,000 to replace all of the trees due to an "act of God". We quit.
To me, fines are not the name of the game. Education is.
Jen at June 1, 2011 10:39 AM
I wish the Charlotte Observer reported the story with more detail. The Charlotte municipal ordinances differentiate between trees on public and private land, and the photograph from the Observer makes me wonder if the trees were on public or private land. The trees are pretty close to the street. Anyhow, the ordinance controls how property owners can trim trees on their own land:
I agree that laws that laws like this that enforce aesthetics ("natural height and form") on private property owners are a bad idea. If the trees are on public land, though, I figure the city owns the trees and they get to set the rules.
Dale at June 1, 2011 11:28 AM
I've lived in my city for over 10 years. For the first time, they have signs posted all around the city to not over prune or top off trees because it's harmful to the tree. We haven't had the need to prune our trees, it hasn't affected us, but it's definitely worth checking out related fines.
NikkiG at June 1, 2011 11:35 AM
"The church was fined $100 per branch cut for excessive pruning, bringing the violation to $4,000."
Wow, so someone went through and counted 40 branches, which I guess isn't that many branches, but still strikes me as a silly waste of time. What do they do if someone cuts down a whole tree? Count it as one big branch, or chop it into as many branches as possible to make the fine as large as possible?
Angie at June 1, 2011 12:00 PM
I figure the city owns the trees and they get to set the rules.
In which case, the city should be maintaining them.
QEF'nD
My city has a private tree trimming service employed year-round as far as I can tell. This is mostly to keep the new growth out of the power lines and other utilities.
I R A Darth Aggie at June 1, 2011 12:14 PM
I have to admit, I'm all for fining churches and taxing them to death - just for being churches and annoying me. But in a case like this, perhaps the fine could be negotiated down? The point has been made, no? I know this is, for the most part, a "property-rights" friendly crowd, but I would argue that this law is not a bad idea. While property rights are an individual concern, property values are a collective concern - hence, issues like tree pruning, maintenance, usage, etc. all become subject to local ordinances to varying degrees, and I don't think that's a bad thing. Los Angeles (where I live) is a virtual monument to haphazard city planning and toothless zoning and preservation laws - all in the name of property rights, which is usually a catchall for short-term gratification and profit at the expense of community quality of life, aesthetics and the neighbors' property values.
mcQuaidLA at June 1, 2011 1:03 PM
They seem to be doing something similarly dumb here in San Diego too. They're pushing to put more trees in the PRoW area (between curb and sidewalk) even allowing groups to help put in "free" ones for people. Plenty of new ones in my neighborhood. However, if they grow large enough that the roots screw up the curb, sidewalk, pipes, etc.. then they expect the home owner to foot the bill for any repairs save the sewer on the street side. That's just stupid. I was shocked to hear about this during the last round of patch work they did where contractors came through the most damaged (raised/uneven sidewalk/curb and such) areas in my neighborhood to break up and dig out the roots, then lay new concrete.. and owners had to pay for it (or at least part of it, I don't remember for sure if it was all or not).
Some are talking restrictions on what kinds of trees you can plant and how to properly trim and such like this as well. But they expect you to do it, not let you just cut out the tree when it's getting to the point it might cause damage, but then make you pay for any damage it does cause. Logic.
Miguelitosd at June 1, 2011 2:06 PM
I forgot, the city will trim themselves here if power lines are in danger.
The other thing on this that seems to be missing is: usually there's a warning issued for these kinds of things before a fine (especially one that large) is levied. I don't see mention of a warning in there and wonder if it's just not all the data, or if the city needs the money enough to just punish any/all they can for the cash. The $4000 fine makes me think it's likely the latter.
Miguelitosd at June 1, 2011 2:09 PM
I think the city isn't getting to the root of the problem by digging up the dirt on these saps. I mean, you can bark about it all you want, but you're really going out on a limb if you support this regulation. And even if it is your tree to cut down I think you should just leave it alone, even if you do need the lumber, Jack.
Everyone owes me a dollar for this post.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at June 1, 2011 3:37 PM
hehehe! @Gog !
Melody at June 1, 2011 6:24 PM
"I know this is, for the most part, a "property-rights" friendly crowd, but I would argue that this law is not a bad idea. While property rights are an individual concern, property values are a collective concern..."
Right, and the collective can pay my fucking legal bills when I let a tree grow wild, a limb falls on my neighbor's house, and my insurance refuses to pay because it was a known hazardous condition.
(Also, you do realize that your rationalization was once used to keep blacks out of neighborhoods? After all, that impacted property values too.)
Cousin Dave at June 1, 2011 7:28 PM
So in order to prevent harm to trees were going to fine people after they harm trees?
Brilliant.
And in order to be fair we'll let them avoid the fines if they agree to destroy the trees.
So in order to prevent harm to trees we wont act until after the tree is harmed, and we'll let people kill the tree entierly in order to avoid punishment for harming the trees in the first place?
Well, if were focusing on this I guess we've fixed the problems like crime, poverty, homelessness, & mental disease.
And one last thing about the ordinace - Trees shall be allowed to grow to their natural height and form.
How can trees be expected to grow "naturally" with a steady unnatural supply of water in the middle of an urban/suburban cityscape where they face no competition from members of their own species, rivals plant species, and preadetory (to them) species?
lujlp at June 1, 2011 10:10 PM
"Also, you do realize that your rationalization was once used to keep blacks out of neighborhoods? After all, that impacted property values too"
Somehow I suspect mcQuaidLA would love to be able to do just that too.
Lobster at June 2, 2011 6:46 AM
Leave a comment