Would you tell someone this tree is OK to leave ??

[toro420]

Here are few pics of a tree that the city has told the owner he does not have to take down.

The first two show the rot at the bottom and were taken in Feb 2010

This one shows two guys for scale reference

These pics were taken the other day

The ditch in the background is for stormwater It has overflowed and the entire root area for this tree was flooded in Dec 2009 I have pics of that The rain that falls flows down to this area and can not escape to the ditch because the walls of the ditch are concrete bubble wrap type material I mention the potential for root rot and failure at the very bottom..
The top portion speaks for itself - at least to me.. Comments Please !!!

The city also said "if falls it will not hit any structure or property"

How is the best, most accurate way to determine the height of tree?? I am guessing this tree is about 60 feet
I also can not tell if it is an Oak or Gum or even something else..
Sorry for the long first post... Thanks

 

[Oldmaple]

Remove it. Decay in the base, flooding, soil saturation. Three strikes you're out. Can't tell from pics if it would damage structures if it would fail, but what about people. Looks like a kids play structure right there so they spend some time there. One thing to have this tree in a fencerow on a farm but not around people. Estimating height. Stand back and count 10 foot sections to the top. Not scientific but it gets you close. Duplicate post for me (previous one seems to be stuck in cyberspace).

 

[lone wolf]

I bet if you pushed the issue with a certified letter from an attorney you may get what you want.

 

[Grouchy old man]

What's your interest in this?

 

[arathol]

First, some questions-
Who actually owns the tree?
Why is the city involved in the evaluation?
Who did the evaluation for the city and was that person certified to do it? Was any documentation provided?

 

[Raintree]

Why is the City involved in that obvious removal?

 

[no tree to big]

without even considering the rot/hollow base, the tree is not ok to leave. as soon as a tree dies it becomes necessary to remove it... because sooner or later every dead tree will topple

 

[stihl023/5]

I am one that would not give a rats *** what the city had to say. Take it down.

 

[TreePointer]

Around here, my city/municipality has no say as to whether a tree should stay or go on my property. They do have a say if it will affect others; that is, a tree of concern that could fall on a city property (city road, city building, utility line, etc.).

 

[computeruser]

What's your interest in this?

That was my first question, too. And the answer is...

 

[toro420]

That was my first question, too. And the answer is...

Here is a diagram of the area with the structures and such... My main concern was that the Oak, because of the structural compromise at the base would have a full failure and follow the "path of tree fall" This would pull the power off his house and send a shock up to the "main pole and transformer" the pole would be pulled toward his house enough when it came back that is would cause a whipping effect on my power line and yank the power off the back of my house....

That WAS my main concern...in the last few months the play structure was set in place. It came mostly asssembled on a trailer with four or five guys carrying into place.. I would not want someone else to have to bury their child.....

 

[toro420]

First, some questions-
Who actually owns the tree?
Why is the city involved in the evaluation?
Who did the evaluation for the city and was that person certified to do it? Was any documentation provided?

The tree is on the property of the house that you see.. Well it is asssuummed to be - the house was built in 2007 without a survey.. I would have at least seen the little red flags since we share two pins according to my survey..

The city passed an ordinance in 2009 You have to get written permission to cut a tree down and ....

(f)
All premises shall be clean and free of all dead, dying or diseased trees or trees leaning more than twenty (20) percent as a result being partially damaged, diseased or uprooted which may endanger, potentially endanger or cause actual injury or impairment to any person, persons or adjacent property. The existence and failure to remove of such dangerous conditions shall be deemed a nuisance.

(g)
It shall be the duty of the owner of any lot or parcel of land to cut or cause to be cut all weeds, grass, or other obnoxious or overgrown vegetation; dead, dying, disease trees or leaning trees; and to remove all garbage, trash and other debris as often as may be necessary to prevent the development of any of the conditions prohibited in this chapter; any owner failing to do so shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(Ord. No. 2009-04, § 1, 3-10-09)


The evaluation was done orginally in May but redone in August As of May the tree was going to be taken down This is part of the response I got last week, after requesting an update -



After speaking with the homeowner again, I went to the property a few weeks ago with one of our inspectors.
The tree in question had some leaves on it, and did not appear to be completely dead. We measured, and it did not appear to be within range of any nearby structure if by some chance it were to fall.
After consulting with our inspector, we both agreed that forcing the homeowner to spend hundreds of dollars to remove the tree would be unreasonable. The homeowner informed us that a county employee who had come to work on the ditch came to a similar conclusion.
I don’t think it is necessary to force one of our residents to incur such a large cost to remove a tree that, in my opinion, does not pose a significant hazard to the surrounding property.

The author is not a certified arborist - and I expect the inspector is not either, other wise he would be doing the tree evals...



I just reread my first email (26 April 2012) and my concern about my power line and the childs playset is clearly spelled out I am still shocked at this response

 

[toro420]

I am one that would not give a rats *** what the city had to say. Take it down.

If I had any idea that it was going to take this long, this much emailing and ...

 

[toro420]

That was my first question, too. And the answer is...

My answer is coming - that post needed to be passed by a MOD..

 

[Raintree]

The city passed an ordinance in 2009 You have to get written permission to cut a tree down and ....

(f)
All premises shall be clean and free of all dead, dying or diseased trees or trees leaning more than twenty (20) percent as a result being partially damaged, diseased or uprooted which may endanger, potentially endanger or cause actual injury or impairment to any person, persons or adjacent property. The existence and failure to remove of such dangerous conditions shall be deemed a nuisance.

(g)
It shall be the duty of the owner of any lot or parcel of land to cut or cause to be cut all weeds, grass, or other obnoxious or overgrown vegetation; dead, dying, disease trees or leaning trees; and to remove all garbage, trash and other debris as often as may be necessary to prevent the development of any of the conditions prohibited in this chapter; any owner failing to do so shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(Ord. No. 2009-04, § 1, 3-10-09)

And we thought we lived in a Free Country! NOT!!! :mad2:

 

[jrider]

How did you approach your neighbor regarding this tree? Do you normally converse with this neighbor? If you never talk to him and you came across like a pushy jerk and it was my tree I would let it stand as long as possible pretty much no matter what. If you came across like a gentleman, completely different story.
Just saying.

 

[toro420]

How did you approach your neighbor regarding this tree? Do you normally converse with this neighbor? If you never talk to him and you came across like a pushy jerk and it was my tree I would let it stand as long as possible pretty much no matter what. If you came across like a gentleman, completely different story.
Just saying.

Good question - I always try to be a good neighbor and gentleman... but on THIS tree I did not even try to speak to him..that did no good before. The back story is pretty long and I will try to spell it out a little later.. I am reviewing emails and dates and work orders and..... I guess I may as well be getting ready to go to court
Since this is his first home - he may not be aware that his insurance might not cover damages and he will be on the hook for all of it... The price to take down this tree next year will probably not be less and if he has to have it cleaned up as a result of storm damage he may not save much - if any. I have no idea what he got for a quote/quotes.
Stay tuned -this keyboard is sticking and I am having a bad time typing...

 

[sefh3]

I bet if you pushed the issue with a certified letter from an attorney you may get what you want.

Especially with the kids playset right there.....

 

[wampum]

Here is a diagram of the area with the structures and such... My main concern was that the Oak, because of the structural compromise at the base would have a full failure and follow the "path of tree fall" This would pull the power off his house and send a shock up to the "main pole and transformer" the pole would be pulled toward his house enough when it came back that is would cause a whipping effect on my power line and yank the power off the back of my house....

That WAS my main concern...in the last few months the play structure was set in place. It came mostly asssembled on a trailer with four or five guys carrying into place.. I would not want someone else to have to bury their child.....

Okay,this is just my opinion.This sounds like it is no where near any structures on your property.Your only concern is that a whipping action MAY cause your power line to come away from your house.That may happen that may not,I believe that is your opinion not an expert's.I would just let him and the city handle it and butt out.If in the future it does come down along with the power line,it would be a pretty simple matter of getting the power line back up.I would keep the E-mails about your concern.There is to much not known here,are you concerned that the city will charge you to put the power lines back up?The E-mail may or may not help you keep from paying if that is the case.

I also believe in private rights.It really bugs me when I hear about all of these local laws that dictate what you can and can not do on your own property.This guy should not need a law telling him what to do,his common sense should come into play.Once again it sounds like the city was called and their expert is telling the home owner that the tree is not a danger and he does not have to remove it.I only said expert,because any city requiring permission to remove trees should have an expert to keep their butts out of trouble. Having said all of that,I think the guy is nuts(if the pictures show the true story)not to remove the tree for his and his family's own safety

 

[arathol]

The tree is on the property of the house that you see.. Well it is asssuummed to be - the house was built in 2007 without a survey.. I would have at least seen the little red flags since we share two pins according to my survey..

The city passed an ordinance in 2009 You have to get written permission to cut a tree down and ....

(f)
All premises shall be clean and free of all dead, dying or diseased trees or trees leaning more than twenty (20) percent as a result being partially damaged, diseased or uprooted which may endanger, potentially endanger or cause actual injury or impairment to any person, persons or adjacent property. The existence and failure to remove of such dangerous conditions shall be deemed a nuisance.

(g)
It shall be the duty of the owner of any lot or parcel of land to cut or cause to be cut all weeds, grass, or other obnoxious or overgrown vegetation; dead, dying, disease trees or leaning trees; and to remove all garbage, trash and other debris as often as may be necessary to prevent the development of any of the conditions prohibited in this chapter; any owner failing to do so shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(Ord. No. 2009-04, § 1, 3-10-09)




The evaluation was done orginally in May but redone in August As of May the tree was going to be taken down This is part of the response I got last week, after requesting an update -



After speaking with the homeowner again, I went to the property a few weeks ago with one of our inspectors.
The tree in question had some leaves on it, and did not appear to be completely dead. We measured, and it did not appear to be within range of any nearby structure if by some chance it were to fall.
After consulting with our inspector, we both agreed that forcing the homeowner to spend hundreds of dollars to remove the tree would be unreasonable. The homeowner informed us that a county employee who had come to work on the ditch came to a similar conclusion.
I don’t think it is necessary to force one of our residents to incur such a large cost to remove a tree that, in my opinion, does not pose a significant hazard to the surrounding property.

The author is not a certified arborist - and I expect the inspector is not either, other wise he would be doing the tree evals...



I just reread my first email (26 April 2012) and my concern about my power line and the childs playset is clearly spelled out I am still shocked at this response

I'm thinking some legal advice is needed here. A few years ago my department sent me for hazardous tree evaluation certification training. The instructor made one thing perfectly clear above all else. When you put your name on that evaluation you are responsibile for the consequences if you a) don't follow up to make sure the hazard was removed and b) you get it wrong and something bad happens. If the tree in question does fall because it is diseased, the city may be responsibile for the damages if the guy who looked at the tree was either not qualified, incompetent or just did not want to deal with it at the time.