The residents of North Niagara Street are up in arms about the impending citywide removal of 121 Aleppo pine trees. A petition has been created on change.org and has collected over 600 signatures to date in disagreement with the city’s reforestation plan.
“The residents were not aware this was a even a discussion the City of Burbank was having about our street. We were not part of the conversation or asked to have a Town Hall to discuss the trees after recent rains brought two trees down, one of which fell on my vehicle,” said the petition created by Dyane MacKinnon. The February storms toppled over a handful of giant Aleppo pine trees on North Niagara, Kenwood, and Pass Street in Burbank.
In the petition MacKinnon argues that real estate agents are telling residents that their homes will lose 10% of their property value after the removal of the mature trees because it loses the cohesive look of the tree-lined street that currently exists. “We pay taxes to maintain the trees, and since the City of Burbank has outsourced the maintaining of the trees, the look of the trees has become more bare and the health of the trees are at risk,” said MacKinnon in the petition.
A City of Burbank representative responded to myBurbank’s questions about the tree removal, stating that many factors of Burbank’s urban forest have been taken into account including public safety. “These trees have a natural life cycle, and unfortunately, persistent drought conditions have compromised their health and stability, and recent storms have weakened them further as evidenced by falling branches and trunks.”
The City says that the Aleppo pines, although majestic, have outgrown the residential areas that they occupy and that the community’s long-term safety and well-being needs to be considered. Replacement trees have been selected and will prioritize resilience, adaptability and adhere to local climate conditions.
“New trees will not only contribute to the aesthetic appeal of our community but also aid in purifying our air, enhancing energy efficiency, managing stormwater runoff, moderating temperatures, reducing noise pollution, and creating a nurturing habitat for local wildlife,” said the city representative. “Tree turnover symbolizes a new beginning for our community – a transition towards a safer, greener, and more sustainable urban landscape that we all can be proud of.”
Residents who will be impacted by the removal have been notified of the reforestation strategy and the Parks and Recreation Department will be delivering door hangers the week before any work is done. The project is planned out in phases that start in September of this year and will conclude in July 2024.
The North Niagara residents have been speaking to local news channels and attended a Sustainability Committee meeting to address their concerns with the City. “The trees have been here longer than the houses,” said Erik Torppe on the petition website. “There is so much greenery and life in the trees. This is NOT OK.”
During the February storms, North Pass between Edison Blvd and Jeffries Ave, had three fallen Aleppo pine trees on one block, tearing up the sidewalk, crushing cars and homes, and cutting off water supply to residents. The City said they analyze and respond to all claims alleging damage caused by trees on an individual basis. The Public Works department addresses removal requests if there is sidewalk damage, pruning needed, or if the tree is impacting the sewer infrastructure. Burbank Water and Power addresses tree removal requests if the tree is impacting water infrastructure.
It might help if the city took a common sense approach to their policies. Because of their strict policy on the number of trees allowed in front of each house they will not allow a new tree to be planted until an older tree is removed. In many cases a tree cannot be planted where a current tree is anyway because of its proximity to an apron or water vault. Why not plant a new tree in the shadow of the older tree allowing the new tree to grow in size for a few years before the older tree is removed? His was suggested to me by an arborist. In front of our home we had two trees in poor shape, we paid the $550 each at the time because we wanted to enjoy them sooner than in 20 years.
No mention at all about the cities most likely motive for removing the trees; their financial liability. The city should at least consult with the homeowners on the streets in question. Weather or not the tree removal is the right thing to do is up for question but lets get the full story. Also, why is the city outsourcing jobs to the private sector?
My knowledge of pine trees is admittedly quite limited, save for the fact that they are incredibly large and, in some cases, have grown to the point of disrupting the sidewalk. When I moved into my house back in 1991, it was quite common to see large trees gracing the fronts of houses and scattered throughout the yards. Over time, however, many residents chose to cut down these trees – possibly to avoid the cost of arborist maintenance.
Contrary to this trend, I chose to keep my tree – a magnificent Chinese Elm which is now the oldest and largest of its kind on the block.
In response to Mosos’ statement, I want to express my complete support for outsourcing. Renowned economist Milton Friedman once argued that government operations generally cost twice as much as they should, on average. With this in mind, I see no issue in outsourcing tasks such as forestry work. It’s a practical solution that helps control expenses for all of us.
The contractor tasked with this job will follow the requirements outlined in the bid to the letter, so it really doesn’t matter whether the work is outsourced or not. The scope of services is clearly defined in a written agreement, and I firmly believe that outsourcing this, along with many other tasks the city needs to accomplish, is a wise course of action.
Comments are closed.