Trees, the City and Surveys

[ultrarunner]

An elderly 94 year widow neighbor was quite beside herself receiving a certified notice giving her 7 days to abate "Hazardous" trees on her property. She has one daughter living several 100 miles away and is basically housebound in her home of 60 years.

Turns out a retired city fireman living in the area called code compliance to express his concern about the state of a number of pines in the area due to on-going draught conditions.

I went over to take a look and I believe the 6 trees in question are on public property. After meeting with the fire Marshall and the blight code compliance officer it was decided to call on a surveyor.

The surveyor came right out and verified the trees are on public property. I relayed the information to the city and asked how soon the city could abate the blight.

The city said it would need the city Arborist to make a determination if the trees in question constitute an immediate hazard now that it looks like the job will be on the city.

The city arborist came out and verified 4 of the 6 trees are indeed hazardous and instructed the owner to have them removed. I gave the arborist the survey showing the trees clearly on public property and asked how soon the city would act.

The arborist said the city is strapped financially and he would ask the homeowner to take care of all the trees in the interest of safety because it is uncertain when the city would be able to respond... half of the tree crew has been impacted due to last month's budget cuts.

As it stands now, the city has decided not to accept the survey the widow provided and will have to have it's own survey before making any commitment.

No wonder cities have financial problems... they don't know the difference between city and private property and it takes a committee to make a decision that drags on for weeks.

I'm certain the wages of 2 Fire Marshalls, 1 Code Compliance Officer, 1 city Arborist, support staff and now a City Survey Crew could have easily addressed trees in question with money to spare.

 

[scgargoyle]

Let her try to build something on that public land and see who it belongs too! I bet they would admit it's theirs then.

 

[mohrds]

As it stands now, the city has decided not to accept the survey the widow provided and will have to have it's own survey before making any commitment.

It figures.... This is why I hate government...

Considering that the surveyor is licensed by the state, until the city can prove that the survey is incorrect, the survey stands and the work is legally required to continue. The state licensed surveyor's report supersedes any politician's opinion in a court of law. But we all know that won't be what really happens.

It is just insulting how the same laws that are enforced on us with an iron fist are overlooked and sidestepped by the same ones who created them for us. The old lady had 7 days to comply (or probably pay $300/day in fines) yet the city can drag its feet indefinitely.

I'd have some fun with them and go yank all the iron pipe markers during the night. Let them do the whole block over from the intersections to make sure they are correct

 

[EddieWalker]

Hey Curt,

What constitutes a "hazardous tree?"

I'm wondering if it's hazardous to the builings it's near? or just a hazard if it falls over and hits a person or some sort of property, like a car?

It is disapointing that they are all fired up to force others to do something, but when it turns out to be their responsibility, they can all of a sudden lose interest in taking care of the problem.

Hope it works out for the lady, it's sad when to hear of these things happening and the stress it must have put her through.

Eddie

 

[ultrarunner]

Thanks for letting me blow off some steam...

It really bugs me and I only hope to have friends to help should I find myself in a similar situation when I'm 94!

By the way, the surveyor basically waived his fee because he had already marked adjacent property corners. I met him about 15 years ago in the area and see his survey points throughout the area... even have a few on my land. He said he gets a couple of calls each month like this.

The penalty stated in the original notice is a fine of $756 plus city administrative fees for having the hazard abated plus the actual cost of the work... so I can only imagine what the actual cost would total.

In retrospect, maybe we should have ignored the letter, let the city do the work and then appeal with the survey in hand after the fact???

The Hazard pertains to dead trees or trees in a severe state of decline so as to increase fuel load and pose a fire hazard in addition to posing a possible threat to children that may be playing in the area... of course these children would be trespassing if the trees had been on private property.

 

[MarkV]

Geez, they give the elderly woman 7 days to comply or a huge fine. When it becomes their problem they think it would be nice of her to do a public service and have the trees removed. I’ll bet the trees are still there in two years if nature doesn’t take them down and cost the city additional expense.

Its not hard to understand why it is so easy to be come frustrated with government bureaucracy.

MarkV

 

[Flatheadyoungin]

of the people, by the people and for the people...


yeah buddy.....

bunch of idiots!

 

[AlanB]

What is even more funny or sad about things like this, is the folks that you spoke too, that are "the city" don't even understand how ridiculous they are being.

 

[rox]

Well I can see why the retired fire marshal called in the complaint. Ive gone thorugh a bad fire where our propety was wehre they stopped the fires on wone side anyway. I think it will be interesting to see what the city does now. I am glad you were able to help her, you are a good neighbor.

 

[SnowRidge]

And why haven't you called the local media yet?

They love to do stories on subjects like this. Elderly widow, threats of fines, don't know where city property ends and private property begins, muddled employees, etc., etc., It's all good stuff. It should be good for at least three news cycles.