SF Makes Homeowners Responsible For Sidewalk Tree Care, Then Fines Them For Doing It "Wrong"
People have called me many things, but nobody's ever called me a "horticulturist."
Good thing I don't live in San Francisco, where the city has mandated that residents care for the trees in front of their buildings -- and then got all picky about exactly how they were doing it.
C.W. Nevius writes at SFGate:
Two years ago, San Francisco began turning over responsibility for sidewalk tree care to residents to save money. So far, 3,669 trees have been transferred to homeowners. And while it may have saved roughly $600,000, it created the wild west of tree trimming.In Schweigert's case, the solution he found online for his ficus was to pollard his trees, which involves trimming back branches to the knobby growth. The online references he found said that it didn't seriously harm plants, but the city says otherwise.
So there are cases like his, where he thinks he's doing the right thing; people who are hacking off branches willy-nilly; and some people who are just letting tree roots run wild.
"If you were thinking about what would be the worst way to manage the urban forest," says Supervisor Scott Wiener, "this would be it. What this does is guarantee inconsistent maintenance."
Unfortunately, an increasing number of property owners will be faced with the challenge of caring for trees the city planted. In total, the city has scheduled 21,653 trees to be transferred to residents. And if those caretakers commit any of the list of obscure pruning sins - like topping, lion tailing, heading or hat-racking - they will face a hefty fine. (The $1,715 total is the estimated cost of replacing a tree and paying a city employee to water it for three years.)
Schweigert was fined $1,700 by the city for not trimming the trees right.
via @walterolson
It's pretty standard for towns to make homeowners responsible for maintaining sidewalk in front of their home. And towns tend to have codes. This isn't news.
NicoleK at May 9, 2013 10:45 PM
Pollarding works very well: it keeps the tree to a certain size and restricts root growth. There is, in principle, nothing wrong with pollarding a tree. I expect it is just unusual in SF, and whoever saw his tree had no idea what was really going on.
If the city didn't specify in its codes exactly *how* the trees were to be maintained, they they can hardly claim pollarding is wrong. Especially since the guy actually hauled in professionals to do with work. If he is willing to fight this in court, it ought to be an open-and-shut case.
a_random_guy at May 10, 2013 1:18 AM
You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think.
Akatsukami at May 10, 2013 3:23 AM
My solution would involve a chainsaw and yelling "Timber!" A tree should be able to grow on it's own. If it doesn't then you picked the wrong tree for the area.
If the city planted it on my dime, against my wishes, and then expects me to maintain it because they're so broke because they wasted $500K on the Cinco De Mayo festival, they can kiss my ass.
Jim P. at May 10, 2013 5:00 AM
Tree? You mean the one that was vandalized overnight? That tree? Why do I pay all this money in taxes when San Francisco can't protect its trees.
MarkD at May 10, 2013 5:16 AM
I want to know why the hell the City would plant a ficus tree on a city street in the first place. The roots of a ficus are incredibly damaging. The anonymous arborist is right, that guy is screwed!
sara at May 10, 2013 5:25 AM
It's pretty standard for towns to make homeowners responsible for maintaining sidewalk in front of their home.
Right. Clearing snow off the sidewalk is a given for the homeowner. But taking care of trees that the city planted? That's should be the city's job. The year we moved into our new place, the town replaced some of the sidewalk that was buckling because of the roots of the tree that they planted. Not only in front of our house, but all up and down the street. Also, before Hurricane Sandy blew through town, the town crews came around and trimmed all the trees that were street-side of the sidewalks. This is what we pay taxes for.
Flynne at May 10, 2013 5:40 AM
NicoleK, the news is not statist overreach. The news is that it's encountering some resistance.
We're tired of the ratchet-it-up, new-normal game. So very very tired.
phunctor at May 10, 2013 5:44 AM
Rope.
TJIC at May 10, 2013 6:05 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/05/sf-makes-homeow.html#comment-3704106">comment from FlynneFlynne is exactly right. Sure, sweep leaves, shovel snow...I get that.
My landlord's gardener likes me and gets that I'm not green-thumbed. He planted flowers I have yet to kill. I actually water them. But I have not a clue (and no interest in learning) as to how to care for a tree other than to look at it and hope it's still there in the days to come.
Amy Alkon
at May 10, 2013 6:19 AM
So, no topiary?
=========================
Liberal government. You do the work, do it exactly how we say to do it (even if we're wrong), bear all the costs, and incur all the liabilities (if you are injured while taking care of the tree, don't expect SF to cover your medical bills) - but we'll take all the credit for the planting and maintenance of the neighborhood trees.
Conan the Grammarian at May 10, 2013 8:47 AM
Pour a bag of salt around it
lujlp at May 10, 2013 9:52 AM
Lujlp has the right idea. I'd just poison all the trees in front of my place rather than submit to this slavery.
MikeInRealLife at May 10, 2013 9:58 AM
In Japan almost all trees near roadways or power lines are pollarded. They look pretty cropped in the winter time.
Isab at May 10, 2013 10:14 AM
Yeah, I think a lot of people just react to the unasthetic look of pollarding -- the trees do look ugly until the new growth comes out. But it should only be necessary every few years.
More to the point is how many cities plant trees in sidewalk medians that are completely inappropriate to the environment. I am thinking of a town in Alabama, which I've known since my childhood, where they planted a bunch of sidewalk trees around 1950. They were white oaks. What a disaster! By 1990 the trees had badly undermined both the sidewalk and the adjacent roadway, and their roots have invaded and clogged sewer lines. And over the past decade they've all died and the city has had to cut them down. Now they've got a bunch of ugly stumps, upheaved sidewalks and streets, and clogged sewers, none of which the town has the money to fix.
Cousin Dave at May 10, 2013 11:05 AM
You want to talk inapproprite for the enviornment? Come to Phoenix, palm trees, pine, elm, willow, maple, cotton wood, flowers from every corner of the world.
We've gone from the place they used to send people with teburculosis too, to the valley with the worst pollen season in the northern hemisphere
lujlp at May 10, 2013 2:06 PM
Oh, Urinetown, when will you ever learn?
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 10, 2013 5:17 PM
Leave a comment