City orders tree removal, how to appeal?

[treeseer]

This tree was deadwooded a year before it fell. The trimmer did not see the hazard; he was not paid for or qualified to look for it. Broken back of driver finally healed, but it cost the city a pile of money. I had to tell the city's insurer there was no way out of paying that bill, becasue they did not exercise Due Care.

lilac, Dixie is right when she says you need to understand the liability that is attached to your tree asset. There may be ways to lessen the risk and keep the tree, but no one knows without a closer look.
A Cleopatra strategy will not prevail when dealing with the city.

 

[lilac]

The city forester called me this morning. Explained to me why the trees ned to come down. One tree had a large limb come down last fall. It was too big for me to move so it was laying there until March when the tree trimmer finally got around to trimming my trees. The forester claims he saw the branch lying there when he went to my neighbor across the street, at the neighbor's request, to inspect his trees. This was last year, so sounds weird to me.

Anyway he says the branch coming down is a clear sign of problems. He said the guy who trimmed the trees should have known there was a problem but that they usually don't say anything because they don't want to make the homeowner mad, just want to get their money and get on to the next job.

He also said the spot where the bark is missing shows decay. He said on the other tree he did a ""mallet test" and it sounds hollow so has to come down. He claims my neighbor didn't ask for my trees to be inspected. Apparently I can go sign a form and they'll tell me who, if anyone, asked for the inspection. I may do that just for my own info but I suppose these kinds of things can be made to disappear.

An arborist from this site has kindly offered to inspect my trees at no charge so I'll probably take this person up on that offer.


Any chance I could go to small claims court and get my tree trimming money back? I'd say the trimmer knew something was up, probably why he hasn't bothered to return my calls.

I told him I will be having an expert examine my trees, that I am not taking his word for anything.

That's all for now.

 

[treeseer]

Anyway he says the branch coming down is a clear sign of problems.

Hard to argue with that, isn't it?

"He also said the spot where the bark is missing shows decay. He said on the other tree he did a ""mallet test" and it sounds hollow so has to come down.
An arborist from this site has kindly offered to inspect my trees at no charge so I'll probably take this person up on that offer."

Sweet deal. S/he will no doubt do a more advanced decay detection--probe, drill...I hope s/he posts the news, and pictures. The city cannot be expected to do advanced testing on trees, especially neglected trees. If they did, they'd have to raise your taxes to pay for it.:taped:

"Any chance I could go to small claims court and get my tree trimming money back?"

He did what you paid him to do. How can you want money back? The magistrate would not give you the time of day on that one. Good luck with the rest.

 

[Dixie1]

that picture of that tree is very scary. a broken back is bad enough, but that could have been fatal. anyway, lilac, it is unfortunate that your tree guy didn't inform you of other problems. kind of tells you a little about his/her ethics, unless they are not very good at what they do and didn't no the tell tale signs of a hazardous tree. please do let us know how this works out.

 

[treeseer]

the tell tale signs of a hazardous tree. .

Oftentimes those tales are told very quietly. The tree in the picture had no cavities, no conks, no cracks. It was pruned via bucket, so no one needed to even look at the trunk. It would have taken a deliberate and experienced :Eye: to see the signs of D K.

 

[lilac]

Does anyone have any advice about what to say or not say in my letter of appeal to the city? I haven't had the trees inspected by an arborist yet but will ASAP so I don't have anything specific to say in my favor other than the fact I want my own inspection. When I called the city they told me I just need to send a list of my reasons for appeal, no proof needed at this time.

I'm thinking I maybe should mention the cost of removing the trees would cause a serious financial hardship for me, regardless of whether I were approved for any of their so-called "programs". Maybe also mention perhaps the "mallet test" should be applied to every silver maple in the city as apparently this was the entire basis for the order of removal of one of the trees and if mine is an extreme danger to the citizens of Denver, then there clearly are many more that pose the same danger. Maybe also that the removal of the trees will cause a decrease in the value of my property.

Any ideas here? I have to mail the letter tomorrow.

 

[SilentElk]

Shame to see you in this tough situation. Having not seen the trees or the situation there is little advice I could give you right now.

I have not worked on trees for almost 2 years now and dont have the equipment I used to, but if I did I would give you a deal on removal if it came to that. Take a few pictures! We are curious about these trees.

I am not sure about Silver Maples in Denver, but in northern colorado silver maples are simply a fast growing and quick dying tree. Once they start to get yellow leaves and lots of small dead in the tips, they dont last much longer. Chlorosis is typically the problem, which is caused by lack of iron in the soil. You can have iron added but from all situations I have seen the effects of added iron are more short term and equire a constant application. Can be costly to have a few hundred dollars of iron added often.

Best of luck.

PS- Seriously, Need Pictures.

 

[treeseer]

Does anyone have any advice about what to say or not say in my letter of appeal to the city? I haven't had the trees inspected by an arborist yet but will ASAP so I don't have anything specific to say in my favor other than the fact I want my own inspection.

Without pictures and without an expert on site you have little to work with. Beg for an extension and say your arborist is coming on x day. Then make sure s/he does!

Crying poor may not be credible because the city understands that anyone who owns property has resources. Your property value argument would thus be counterproductive--after all the city is saying the tree has negative value.

Attacking the mallet test is not credible in the absence of any effort on your part to assess the risk to the public. pointing to other trees just attacks the credibility of their inspection process, which they will energetically defend.

Until you start being responsible for your assets, you haven't a leg or a stem to stand on.

 

[OTG BOSTON]

So anyway, guess I'll have to give in and speak the city jerk who wrote the order, find out what he alleges is the problem. Then I'll get someone of my choosing who actually knows something about trees and is not paid by the city(or my neighbor) to see if he's right or not.

Try something like this as an opener:hmm3grin2orange:

 

[tree pro]

Here is the problem with the mallet test.

Yesterday, we were scheduled to take down a silver Maple in Denver on the right of way, but I failed to obtain a permit. I called the city forestry inspector that covers the area and asked her to come check the tree and give me permission to remove the tree.

The tree was a 40 inch DBA tree and about 50-60% of the crown was dead, the entire main central lead was toast, the only foliage that would have been left would have been a side lead that was still alive, but the entire tree was declining.

I was absolutely sure the inspector would approve the removal, but when she arrived, she brought out her high tech tools for the evaluation, a broomstick and a small hand held sledge hammer. She hit the tree on several locations, as high as she could reach, and informed me that she would not approve the removal because the tree was not hollow. She did not even look up at the crown until I pointed out the major decline. Still she would not approve unless the homeowner agreed to plant and maintain a tree in the same area for a period of three years. He did, we removed the tree.

The trunk was full of carpenter ants and the decay was extensive, there was no structural stability to any of the heartwood. There was a rind of wood intact about 6 inches thick.

The mallet test sucks, especially when determining the fate of Denvers Maples.

 

[treeseer]

The mallet test sucks, especially when determining the fate of Denvers Maples.

Any test sucks, if the tester does not :Eye: the entire tree.

 

[Dadatwins]

Any test sucks, if the tester does not :Eye: the entire tree.

Or fails to look up at all.

 

[Justice]

OTG BOSTON.... WELL SAID!!

I am a Muni in NJ so I feel you on that one.

I can tell you that if you attack the Muni verbally you will only make things more difficult.
You could have your arborist preform a ristograph and do a report on the findings as far as the tree health. Just my opinion but the "hardship" line does work here, and I am responsible for all trimming, removals, root pruning, and planting of municipal town tree's. I have actually had to remove private tree's (at the direction of the Mayor) because people used the "hardship" argument.

Obviously what you don't know is we Muni's fight ALL THE TIME to save tree's that people, engineers, mason's, and builders (just to mention a few) want removed. Removed because: they get leaves in my gutters, I don't want to rake leaves, the birds in the tree crap on my car, my satellite TV guy says you need to remove it so I can get my channels, From the town council: because that guy might vote for me....blah blah blah

"I am so afraid of that tree I make my kids sleep in the basement" of course they had only been there 2 years and the tree (very healthy) had been there over 100years.

We then have to defend our decisions to EVERYONE who thinks they know better, yet we are the only one's with any qualifications.

As far as the permit, here if you don't get a permit and work on a town tree its a $1500 fine per tree, plus "replacement cost valve" (if take down) of the tree and any corrective measures are done and the offender is billed for.

You could go to a town council meeting and address the council, and call your area council man/woman. If your private arborist is confident in the health of the tree and you provide that to your council man/woman they should fight for you... (they don't really like you but you might vote for them:hmm3grin2orange: )

Are the town inspectors certified arborists? Can they prove it? Many are not, they are just inspectors and not Municipal arborists.

In the end it has everything to do with your local ordinances. They do come up for review every couple years so you might want to get involved with changing them.

Does your town have a Shade Tree Commission? If not maybe you could look into starting one.

 

[Justice]

OTG BOSTON.... WELL SAID!!

I am a Muni in NJ so I feel you on that one.

I can tell you that if you attack the Muni verbally you will only make things more difficult.
You could have your arborist preform a ristograph and do a report on the findings as far as the tree health. Just my opinion but the "hardship" line does work here, and I am responsible for all trimming, removals, root pruning, and planting of municipal town tree's. I have actually had to remove private tree's (at the direction of the Mayor) because people used the "hardship" argument.

Obviously what you don't know is we Muni's fight ALL THE TIME to save tree's that people, engineers, mason's, and builders (just to mention a few) want removed. Removed because: they get leaves in my gutters, I don't want to rake leaves, the birds in the tree crap on my car, my satellite TV guy says you need to remove it so I can get my channels, From the town council: because that guy might vote for me....blah blah blah

"I am so afraid of that tree I make my kids sleep in the basement" of course they had only been there 2 years and the tree (very healthy) had been there over 100years.

We then have to defend our decisions to EVERYONE who thinks they know better, yet we are the only one's with any qualifications.

As far as the permit, here if you don't get a permit and work on a town tree its a $1500 fine per tree, plus "replacement cost valve" (if take down) of the tree and any corrective measures are done and the offender is billed for.

You could go to a town council meeting and address the council, and call your area council man/woman. If your private arborist is confident in the health of the tree and you provide that to your council man/woman they should fight for you... (they don't really like you but you might vote for them:hmm3grin2orange: )

Are the town inspectors certified arborists? Can they prove it? Many are not, they are just inspectors and not Municipal arborists.

In the end it has everything to do with your local ordinances. They do come up for review every couple years so you might want to get involved with changing them.

Does your town have a Shade Tree Commission? If not maybe you could look into starting one.

 

[bdawg]

Trees in ROW

:bang: In my town, trees in the ROW cannot be trimmed or cut without permission of the town, BUT ~ I as homeowner am responsible for all trimming, cutting and shared liability for accidents resulting from fallen limbs or trees. We recently had someone killed by a fallen branch (about three years ago... and not my tree thankyou...) and as a result, the town went nuts telling everybody to trim their trees in the ROW. With the number of people who tried to fight it and lost... I would suggest you may be in for a good tree cutting. However, in my town, the town workers are real friendly... and whenever I need help, they come around. You tried asking them for help with the cutting???

 

[Channon]

Any updates?

Lilac,

Came across your post today, and really feel for you. On a side note, I can't believe the number of people who got totally hung up over Denver's laws regarding YOUR trees that are YOUR responsibility on YOUR property in the area that Denver defines as the public right of way.

I was wondering how this worked out for you, and if you had any more useful information for fellow Denverites.

I moved to the historic 7th Ave neighborhood in Denver, partly because I fell in love with the neighborhood atmosphere provided by the trees. And, I'm heartbroken that my neighbor just cut down a big old, still healthy, maple; I feel at a loss. Incredibly sadly, it contained a woodpecker's nest that I have been watching this spring. I just lost atmosphere, privacy and shade. Not to mention property value. And the city just lost a few more red-shafted northern flickers.

Two houses up, the owners just cut down a beautiful (24-inch diameter trunk) healthy white pine in their front yard. It was too close to their house, and on the east side prevented winter sun, but they were foolish. The should have thinned lower branches, and got a properly-placed deciduous tree in the ground and growing (for about 5-10 years) before removing the conifer. They probably lost $20,000 in market value of their home with this move, it being the only mature tree on their lot.

 

[lilac]

Lilac,

Came across your post today, and really feel for you. On a side note, I can't believe the number of people who got totally hung up over Denver's laws regarding YOUR trees that are YOUR responsibility on YOUR property in the area that Denver defines as the public right of way.

I was wondering how this worked out for you, and if you had any more useful information for fellow Denverites.

I moved to the historic 7th Ave neighborhood in Denver, partly because I fell in love with the neighborhood atmosphere provided by the trees. And, I'm heartbroken that my neighbor just cut down a big old, still healthy, maple; I feel at a loss. Incredibly sadly, it contained a woodpecker's nest that I have been watching this spring. I just lost atmosphere, privacy and shade. Not to mention property value. And the city just lost a few more red-shafted northern flickers.

Two houses up, the owners just cut down a beautiful (24-inch diameter trunk) healthy white pine in their front yard. It was too close to their house, and on the east side prevented winter sun, but they were foolish. The should have thinned lower branches, and got a properly-placed deciduous tree in the ground and growing (for about 5-10 years) before removing the conifer. They probably lost $20,000 in market value of their home with this move, it being the only mature tree on their lot.

Right now I'm waiting to hear from the arborist who contacted me thru this website. He looked at my trees, said he doesn't see what the major issue is, and is going to meet with the city forester to discuss the alleged problems with my trees. As soon as I know anything I'll be sure to post an update here.

As far as your neighbor's trees I've got a bit of the same situation here. The one tree that I was told by the city forester needs further inspection before a decision will be made as to whether it needs to come down or not has a hole where flickers usually have a nest. Apparently this is the issue. They need to look down the hole to make a decision I guess. Do you know if your neighbors took the tree down voluntarily or if they were ordered to by the city?

I know what you mean about losing your shade. The people across the street from me have taken down 3 huge trees from the ROW in front of their house. This means when the sun starts to set it blazes into my livingroom like crazy. I can't imagine what it will be like if my 2 trees are taken down also.

I've got a new question. Today I arrived home to find a letter on my front door from a tree service explaining that they are "constantly monitoring the Denver City Foresters citation list" and of course claiming they can give me a better price than anyone else. It goes on to say "We have evaluated the tree work written up by the city foresters office at your property and have prepared a price to do the work." Of course I must call them to find out what an outstanding deal they have for me. Does anyone know if this list is available for anyone to look at or if it even exists? I searched the city website and have found nothing. Personally I fail to see why this information should be available to anyone but myself and the city.


Anyway, I'll post an update as soon as I know anything new.

 

[treeseer]

Today I arrived home to find a letter on my front door from a tree service explaining that they are "constantly monitoring the Denver City Foresters citation list" and of course claiming they can give me a better price than anyone else. It goes on to say "We have evaluated the tree work written up by the city foresters office at your property and have prepared a price to do the work."

Sounds like a new breed of wood tick. When there are no storms to chase behind and ply their fearmongering arborphobia :chainsawguy: , they hustle city work. You are right to question this practice.

as far as the community tree loss, you have to wonder what goals your neighbors have. my old neighbors whacked their oaks because of the litter nuisance, then had to take out a 2nd mortgage to buy new air conditioners to replace the ones they cut.

 

[Channon]

"Do you know if your neighbors took the tree down voluntarily or if they were ordered to by the city?"​

They are old folks who let the "news" scare them. Saw a story about a tree that fell on a parked car (slow news day), and decided they could have that. It's a big scary world we live in, with lots of risks -- enjoy life and worry only about the stuff that's worth worrying about!

Foresters require trees with flicker nests to come down, and then elsewhere in city government someone is paid to monitor the declining flicker population. Perhaps if the foresters who are so quick to order the removal of a flicker nest were, as part of the job description, personally responsible for the installation of a couple new flicker houses, they would take a closer look at the true state of the tree they were ordering chopped. At a minimum, it would end the city policy of habitat destruction.

 

[Channon]

"my old neighbors whacked their oaks because of the litter nuisance, then had to take out a 2nd mortgage to buy new air conditioners to replace the ones they cut."​

That is fantastic justice. I wonder, though, if they even see the relation -- "Gee, it's a hot summer, with a lot less shade this year..."