A Tree? For Me? Oh, You Shouldn’t Have!

Spread the love

The San Francisco Chronicle has reported that the City of San Francisco is working through a process of notifying residents that the street trees next to their property are now their responsibility. Each tree is individually assessed and a notice is posted and sent to the property owner when the transfer happens.

The problem is that the city simply can’t afford to trim and care for the 100,000 trees in public spaces in the city. According to the plan they’ve posted, they will be transferring 3000 trees per year to private maintenance.

Street trees continue to be planted at the rate of about 1200 per year, but those are now automatically placed in the care of the property owner.

So here’s the thing:  these trees should be pruned every 3-5 years, according to the city and general common sense, but the city’s only been able to trim them on a 10-12 year schedule.  People who plan to hire this out can expect to spend $300-$1000 to get this done, depending on the tree. 

And of course, the efficiency of having someone come along and trim all the trees on the block will, presumably, be lost when one property owner at a time decides to deal with tree-trimming.  It would be nice if people would work together and coordinate this and all chip in to get the work done on a regular schedule for a good price–but come on, this is San Francisco.  How likely is that to happen?

So–there’s no good answer.  Money’s tight, budgets are being cut, and tough decisions had to be made.  Sure, it might end up costing more in the long run, as things like street trees fall into disrepair or, at best, are unevenly maintained–but it’s hard to see what else they could have done.

Any San Francisco property owners out there dealing with the unexpected gift of a few street trees?  Or any other communities dealing with the same issue?  We’d love to hear your thoughts.

 

Posted by

Amy Stewart
on January 25, 2012 at 5:28 am, in the category Ministry of Controversy.

img.jpg
Previous post
Tombstone as Landscape Feature
img.jpg
Next post
Flow Chart for the Gardening Revival

8 Comments

  1. 30th August 2016 at 2:05 pm —

    I would guess that’s a good reason for neighborhoods to band together and form a tree-trimming coalition to get discounted rates. :)

  2. 18th November 2016 at 9:31 pm —

    Planting a tree that needs to be pruned every 3 to 5 years is just bad planning. They should plant trees that will grow to fit the allowable space.

  3. 22nd November 2016 at 7:25 pm —

    My husband is a forester. We heat with wood. Problem solved. But seriously, I would cut down the tree(s) I owned and plant something appropriate. Budgets are tight for everyone, not just the city. Intentionally imposing an expense on someone should be against the law.

  4. 24th November 2016 at 10:05 am —

    …and what about liability? If a now-private tree falls on someone’s car will the “owner” be responsible for damages?

  5. 24th November 2016 at 10:23 am —

    This moves seems like an invitation for residents to “accidentally” poison their new and costly street trees.

  6. 24th November 2016 at 1:36 pm —

    I would have loved for my town to tell me I owned my street trees. Begged them for years to cut down an EAB infested Ash as well as a maple that had been maimed by a car and was dying a miserable death.
    Shouldn’t we be celebrating the fact that some moron with a chainsaw will not becoming down the street anymore to ruin our trees? Sounds like a great opportunity for an IGC to start giving lectures on pruning street trees. Lets get serious people.

  7. 24th November 2016 at 1:43 pm —

    Here’s a possible solution. Since trees add value to everyone’s property, perhaps the city could charge a fee to property owners based on the value of their property, the proceeds of which would fund a crew of people working for the city who would regularly trim trees. Oh wait, that would be GOVERNMENT and we can’t have that. So instead the first time the property owner finds out trimming costs $1,000, they will pay $2,000 and have the tree cut down. And a city without trees is so much better than a city with GOVERNMENT.

  8. 24th November 2016 at 1:49 pm —

    This is a terrible plan from the city of S.F.
    All you have to do is look at certain areas of the city ( take the sunset district for instance ) and you’ll see that given the opportunity to cut down a street tree a homeowner will do it in a heart beat. … get this… … for additional parking.
    In a city that has suburban like neighborhoods within the city boundaries parking is a major issue. I can hear the chain saws buzzing.

Leave a reply

Back
SHARE

A Tree? For Me? Oh, You Shouldn’t Have!