Comments on: Ficus trees: The latest fight between treehuggers in Santa Monica

By: DC

DC — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 03:16:04 +0000

I absolutely agree with post 12. Most of the huggers would certainly sing a different toon if they were facing a massive repair bills for their lateral. The city writes laws to protect themselves and offer zero assistance to honest tax paying owners. Its simple the roots tresspass into my pipe. If this was your neighbors tree and not the city its a open and shut case of fault to the tree owner. There’s a pecking order. Saftey, property damage then tree. Logical?
Hug it?….I would like to strangle it.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:54:25 +0000

I hate ficus trees! West Hollywood needs to follow Santa Monica and remove those sewar clogging, sidewalk lifting, street buckling trees from the residential areas!

I wonder how many of these tree savers live with a monster ficus in front of their homes? Have the funds to get a rooter company to come out twice a year, or even have the $12,000-$15,000 needed to repair a destroyed lateral line to the city sewer? WeHo considers lateral lines the responsibilty of the homeowner even though line breakage by city ficus roots are in the street.

By: Siel

Siel — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 02:27:17 +0000

Daniel — If you knew even the “reason for the lack of clarity on the topic of diseased trees,” then why did you begin your first comment with “We’ve made it very clear that the diseased and damaged trees are not in dispute”? If it’s unclear, you haven’t made it clear, dude. That said, thanks for admitting as much.

I’m v. confused by your claim that none of the trees are diseased, but perhaps I have a wider definition of what disease is. I mean, I’d call “irreversible decay” and “inherent structural damage” signs of disease, but whatev. In any case, I’ve written a new post ’bout the tree fight –

By: Daniel Jansenson

Daniel Jansenson — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:51:22 +0000

“Until Tree Savers makes it clear that the city is indeed removing perfectly healthy trees that don’t pose any danger to the public, I won’t be signing their petition.”

Please take a look at the blogsite–I believe the group has now made it as clear as it is possible to make. We look forward to your signature on our petition. Thank you.

By: Charles Fredricks

Charles Fredricks — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:49:48 +0000

Some of the confusion regarding how many trees are to be removed by the city versus how many Treesavers are talking about can be resolved if you trace back the contradictory statements of the city on the issue. Despite being depicted as a “treasure” and the very best choice for the city by City Forester Walt Warriner’s in a 2005 interview, http://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2005/May-2005/05_28_05_A_Passion_for_the_Citys_Roots.htm

the city’s plan as originally proposed called fro uprooting every other ficus tree
http://www.smgov.net/cityclerk/council/agendas/2005/20051011/s2005101108-B.htm

compare “Existing Conditions B1 & B2″ to “Proposed Layout C1 & C2″

Its current plan as bid and posted is much the same, though half the plan diagram seems to be missing from the web post
http://www.smgov.net/cityclerk/council/agendas/2007/20070814/s2007081401-J.htm

An interesting note is that on the city’s homepage
http://www.smgov.net/home/index.asp
where the upcoming plan is linked to, it mentions that two trees will be planted for every one removed — and the accompanying photo is of two full grown trees, ficus, not the scrawny ginko’s that will take their place.

In short, the city spends money on sidewalk repair or mitigation (replacement with rubber) and someone thought it was a good idea to rip out every other ficus, regardless of condition. That was the plan. Perhaps, due to public objection, they may, if we keep the heat, limit removal to only those trees seriously damaged, which if they are a danger to the public or other trees we have no objection to. Those are far fewer in number than the original plan entails. This is what we’re pushing for.

The ginkos are more susceptible to creating alergic reactions in people, and will take twenty years at least to attain similar stature, and even then because of the shape will not provide the same benefits the ficus trees currently do.