What was the point to cutting down that tree. Was it not a "Heritage Tree"? That corner of the block was not going to be touched in the demo and remodel of that block. Who did this?
Who was the skinny kid who climbed the second tree to keep it from being cut down. As stupid as it may seem should that corner be designated park land? One of the guys on the tree cutting crew had a weird look on his face, probably wondering if he was going to get paid or jailed. What's the deal with this. Wait, there's more! Why is there a sign for leasing commercial space right next to the sign that says what buildings are to be torn down? Info anyone?
Here's what I know. The owner of that corner lot (and the Busy Bee and the building to the south of that) is the owner of Wash's Auto, and he wants to develop that corner into a parking log. (!) St. Gobain didn't have anything to do with it, but that's who people assume owns that corner lot because it's right next to one of their former buildings.
Harbor Properties is involved with the redevelopment of the building on Hudson next to the corner with the trees, and is looking for a tenant in that building and has plans to restore it to its original look.
The corner lot with the trees sits within the bounds of the historic district, and the owner had no permit to cut the trees down. The smaller of the two trees was saved, but not before they hacked through $2,500-worth of lights that CCBA, Harbor Properties and Tutta Bella paid for last year for the annual tree lighting ceremony. I grabbed whatever lights were on the ground and they're now piled into a sad heap in my office. A police officer is parked across Hudson, waiting and watching to make sure the guys who were hired to cut the tree down simply clean up what's there and leave. (SPD was great - very responsive.)
The police issued a cease and desist, so the smaller tree is saved for now. But you can't undo the cutting down of a big tree. I was told that trees with trunks of a certain diameter and larger require special consideration, but that tree was denied that because the property owner felt they could do whatever they wanted. I heard that the owner was there, and quite upset that "tree huggers" would get in the way of his plans. But I think this illustrates what happens when property owners live somewhere else, and are only financially invested in a neighborhood and feel that that entitles them to do whatever they want, without regard for the wishes of the people that live and work there.
Some of us invest in other ways: by shopping and paying sales tax, by owning a home and paying property tax, by running a business and paying B&O and City taxes, and many, many others invest with their time and energy to host events, volunteer and build relationships. I wish property owners who lived elsewhere respected these other forms of investment, and worked with all of us so that both their success and the livability of an area were both preserved. It can be a win-win, it doesn't have to be this way.
The second tree is saved for now, but I encourage people to contact city council members to voice their opinions on this.
One more thing - I just wanted to thank everyone who rallied together, called the police, the arborist, and even climbed up in the tree to save the 2nd tree. Your spontaneous actions are appreciated!
Special thanks to Bill Ames, Forester and ISA Certified Arborist, for taking time to come down and intervene. He was great in explaining to the police and land owner that cutting trees on commercial property requires a permit and these trees may be considered Exceptional Trees and protected by ordinance DR 16-2008.
The Designation of Exceptional Trees was updated earlier this year
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/news/20090302a.asp
Heritage Tree Program - A cooperative program between the City of Seattle and
Plant Amnesty to celebrate Seattle's Special Trees.
- Specimen: A tree of exceptional size, form, or rarity.
- Historic: A tree recognized by virtue of its age, its association with or contribution to a historic structure or district, or its association with a noted person or historic event.
- Landmark: Trees that are landmarks of a community.
- Collection: Trees in a notable grove, avenue, or other planting.
http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/transportation/heritagetree.htm
Seattle City Council may limit tree-cutting by property owners
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008458052_trees02m0.html
It really was a remarkable morning:
http://www.rainiervalleypost.com/?p=17200
I'm torn between feeling impressed and proud that so many people jumped in and saved the smaller tree — and just so sad and upset that the big one is gone.
mik
By the way… the 'skinny kid' that climbed the second tree to save it is none other than Columbia City's very own Nic Warmenhoven. And he is no kid either, he is a full on married grown up, Columbia City house owner with kids. Buy him a beer next time you see him, he was even getting over the flu and still managed to get himself up that tree.
Absolutely. Thanks Joel.
I thought Mikala did a good job of summing it all up, and I was puzzled by the reaction from some who weren't there that morning.
Neighbors' comments about priorities are off the mark, especially where Nic is concerned. By day, he's a mild-mannered teacher focused entirely on the kids these folks are talking about.
I thought this was the best counter to the idea that loving trees is somehow anti-people: "And as for the people dying in the street, who among us would not climb up a hobo being threatened with a chainsaw?"
I think Wash has his reasons, and the reality is that it is his property. The City has contacted him, and they're working it out. Having said that, I think it would be much more appropriate to contact Wash at his place of business:
5021 Rainier Ave S
Seattle, WA 98118-1926
(206) 722-3205
Anon, I think it would be a nice gesture for you to delete his home address.
It's taken me a couple weeks to admit that the lights that came out of the tree just 'aint goin' back up. So I have a pile of efficient LED lights here in my office, and am wondering if there are any industrious people out there who might want to patch them up and use them? Maybe for your home? Or wreaths for some of the business windows? Lemme know: moc.ogidni-esum|ennaoj#moc.ogidni-esum|ennaoj. First-come, first-served.
Wash Murakami, who is I think in his 80s, has had Wash's Auto Repair for many decades. Many of us have taken our cars to Wash for service and shmoozed with him. Yes, he lives somewhere else- looks like it's southwest of White Center- not Arizona. I wish he hadn't cut down the tree, but when we research people involved in an issue, it's incumbent to use appropriate tactics. Sometimes people we see as our opponents are more complicated than assumed. Wash is a one of the people who kept Columbia City going way before many of the rest of us moved here, and is a representative of the history of Seattle's Japanese-American community. Again, I wish he had not taken this action, but city laws are very complicated and ignorance and impatience do play a role in decisions. Please delete his home address and phone number- business contact info is quite enough- which was posted by someone who concealed their identity [purposefully or without meaning to!]
We live in Washington state, where trees grow everywhere on their own without any help, and they grow quite large. Cutting down a tree is no big deal here. The old-growth forest habitat worth preserving only exists in old growth forests, which are nowhere near Seattle.
That is an incredibly simplistic argument.
For one - it's been shown that mature trees provide much more habitat than an equivalent canopy of young trees. We lose that when mature trees are cut down; and it takes many decades to restore, if ever.
Mature trees also have intrinsic aesthetic value and make up much of the character of a neighborhood. Cutting those trees is like tearing down a historic home and replacing it with cookie cutter town homes.
If anybody is interested in supporting a revision to the Seattle tree protection ordinance to better protect significant trees, do a web-search for 'TreePAC Seattle'.
That's for street trees located next to construction. It's simple, and it works. Sometimes they build plywood boxes around the trunks, to help protect the bark and root zones from heavy machinery and piles of building materials.
In this case (private property, no proposed construction) this practice wouldn't have applied.
But it's clear that cutting shouldn't happen at Rainier & Hudson. Mr. Murakami's lot has no buildings on it, and there's no proposal to redevelop. The tree protection ordinance — Seattle Muncipal Code (SMC) 25.11.040 A1 — prohibits cutting trees >6" wide at chest height, on commercially zoned land with no buildings and where there's no proposed development.
He probably didn't know it, and didn't take the time to find out. But now he knows.
The Landmarks committee gets to review an application to cut 2 1/2 trees. They meet Tuesday afternoon, May 4, at 4pm in the RV Cultural Center. Here's the agenda.
Next week the Landmarks Preservation Board meets to hear Wash Murakami's request to cut down the deodar cedar at the SW corner of Rainier & Hudson — see the second agenda item. The way I see it, there isn't much the Board can do but approve the request.
At one point, the Department of Planning and Development might have stepped up to enforce its tree protection rules, but that would've resulted in a substantial fine for a property owner with deep roots in the neighborhood. It's complicated and too bad this tree needs to go simply to make room for more parking.
Oh, the sight of that sad, chopped off light brings it all back. We were told at the CCBA meeting yesterday that the City was in favor of approving this corner to be a park, but that the Mr. Murakami won't sell to the City.
Read other recent posts. |