| Exceptional tree illegally cut in Ballard, homeowner faces fine. |
| Seattle, Feb 3, 2010 - Michael J Swassing, ISA Certified Arborist - (206) 841-5954 |
On January 21, 2010, longtime neighbors of the area near NW 60th Ave and 9th St NW in the Ballard neighborhood of Seattle saw a work crew with a crane, chain-saws and chipper taking down a Monkey Puzzle tree. This startled many, because the tree was well known in the area, and Seattle has a tree preservation ordinance. The neighborhood blog, My Ballard was called, and the news was reported as it happened.
The property had recently been sold.
The realtors involved should have advised the potential buyers somewhere along the way
that the tree was listed as the first specimen of that species in
Arthur Lee Jacobson's "Trees of Seattle" (2nd ed, 2006) p. 267. Where
it is listed as a male of the species about 65 feet tall.
When I chatted with Arthur Lee Jacobson on the phone yesterday about
the tree, he remembered it specifically, he described it as "more
beautiful and more promenently placed than most of the others." And
that it "commanded the intersection."
The list of specimens in his book is arranged by height, and this tree
was listed first among the trees he measured and included in the book.
He describes his criteria for including an individual tree in the book
on page 10: "... those chosen for inclusion (all else being equal),
are big rather than small, old rather than young, healthy rather than
sickly, attractive rather than ugly, and on public rather than private
land. Naturally, rarer sorts of trees are usually listed regardless
... "
Within a matter of days, a controversy spread in the neighborhood, and City officials were consulted. Seattle's tree preservation ordinance had been violated. No permit had been issued to cut the tree, which qualified as an "exceptional tree" under the ordinance. My Seattle reported that the city may issue a fine, and the blogosphere began to light up with opinions about what people ought to have the right to do on their own property.
There seems to be a lot of back and forth discussion about the rights of property owners to dispose of their personal property as they see fit (see also Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment).
But if you back up a bit and take a larger, longer view, it is the new homeowner who has lost considerable value due to not understanding the asset they purchased.
As an analogy: If a person buys an estate as a lot, and that estate includes valuable artwork, it is the new owner's right to destroy the artwork, if they are ignorant of its value. Taking this analogy a bit further, most people are not aware that an aborist may be called upon to appraise the value of a tree for insurance claims, or in civil litigation.
But the same is not true for features of the land which affect the environment and quality of life for all. That is why zoning laws exist, and also laws that make it illegal to dispose of raw sewage, even on your own property. Or to burn tires in your own backyard.
Because people have rights, and so do other people.
If the realtors, buyers, and sellers of this property had perfect information, this tree would have been treated by all as a valuable asset. If the new buyers did not want a property with a protected tree of significant value as an asset, then there were many other properties for sale they might have chosen.
And let someone who wanted to take on the role of stewardship of this majestic tree buy the house instead.
|
 |
| Monkey Puzzle tree to right of house in Ballard |
|
|
|
 |
| Tree crew with chain-saws and crain. |
|
|
|
|
|