Should the City's Million-Tree Plan Get Pruned?
Before we try to get thousands and thousands of new trees to grow in Brooklyn, we should take care of the ones we already have. That’s the gist of a discussion thread started by a poster on the Carroll Gardens Neighborhood Association Yahoo group who argues the city doesn’t trim existing trees in a timely…
Before we try to get thousands and thousands of new trees to grow in Brooklyn, we should take care of the ones we already have. That’s the gist of a discussion thread started by a poster on the Carroll Gardens Neighborhood Association Yahoo group who argues the city doesn’t trim existing trees in a timely enough fashion—a task it should be more on top of as the mayor’s ballyhooed plaNYC initiative to plant a million trees starts to take root. CB6 Chair Craig Hammerman weighs in on the discussion by saying there’s a really scary element to the million-tree plan:
It used to be that requests for tree plantings had to have the consent of the property owner or some responsible party at the planting location. Seems like the City doesn’t want to function that way anymore. Now anyone can request that a tree be planted anywhere, property owner be damned…Why force a tree on someone who may very well have a perfectly legitimate reason for not wanting one? As if the trees in this City didn’t have a hard enough time trying to survive a tough urban environment.
Think these are good points? Does the tree-planting initiative impinge on property owners’ rights, and should the city be doing more to take care of our existing trees?
Homeowner absolutely not responsible for limbs that fall from city-planted trees. Yes, you have to keep sidewalks clean and safe. That is part of your social contract as a homeowner in most of the US.
And in NY, the maintance of the sidewalk is more complicated than that. We just had ours replaced and city paid in full.
Just to clear up some misconceptions: in many cities including NY, traditional practice has been that a property owner’s permission is requested when a city seeks to cut a sidewalk and plant a tree if a tee pit is not already existent.
The City will plant one of any number of trees off a list according to availability. We have not been able to request specific tree species but apparently, working with the City arborists, they are willing to consider planting moderate height trees instead of very tall ones as we have requested. Now that the tree pits are in place, we are welcome to pay privately to have our own chosen tree varieties planted but since we are a not-for-profit we’ve opted to take whatever Parks plants.
I am a member of a group that leases a city property. We actually requested a number of tree pits to be cut into the sidewalk. We already had one in which the tree had died. Next door, the private business which has a wide front did not want trees and no tree pits were cut. The business does have some legit reasons for not wanting trees but that is another story.
New buildings going up typically break up the exiting sidewalk which will get patchy repairs during construction. These properties get completely new sidewalks with molded in tree pits (i.e. not cut in) and the owners usually put in trees of their choice which are usually lower maintenance (less or finer leaf litter) and less likely to heave the sidewalks over time.
FG/TGL
The trees in Brooklyn have become public toilets for dogs!
Craig Hammerman = moron
How about taking care of the trees on much-lauded South Portland Avenue? Are they sick? Have the beetles attacked them? The leaves on those famous trees are brown and sparse even in the middle of summer. I’ve never understood how that block is the “best block” with those sickly looking, out-of-control trees. It makes the block very dark and depressing. Something is wrong with those trees.
Was Carroll Gardens always full of pretentious, self-involved, self-righteous NIMBYs? Or is this a relatively new thing? Perhaps Carroll Gardens would like to turn itself into a gated community, where they can regulate the “scary” trees to their hearts’ content.
You;re asking why anyone would object and that it is city property,etc.
Well, owner of property is obligated to maintain the sidewalk (which tree roots can damage, make unlevel,etc) and property owner is then liable for anyone that ‘falls’. Probably same for limbs that fall….or leaves that fall and get wet and someone slips.
So owner of property does have valid concerns.
can we please have a filter option to avoid Gabby posts?
there are far far greater issues that need to be face in Carroll Gardens