In the past weeks, residents in different areas of Dearborn have separately reached out to city leaders, suggesting that neighbors are violating the terms and spirit of Dearborn’s vague attempt to protect our trees.
Here are the conditions that must be met for tree removal within Dearborn:
a. Where necessary for the location of a structure or site improvement and when a reasonable and prudent alternative location for such structure or improvement can be demonstrated to create an undue hardship.
b. Where removal or relocation of the tree is consistent with good forestry practices or if it will enhance the health of remaining trees.
Yet trees continue to come down throughout our city for no apparent reason. Residents on Elmwood recently watched in shock as a tree removal company ripped down a stand of oaks that stood in the neighborhood for over 100 years. Similar reports have come in from the Outer Drive and Cherry Hill area, and we’ve witnessed the same happening near Howard Elementary School and Crowley Park. It’s shameful and it’s time it came to an end.
We believe the ordinance in its current form does little to protect one of Dearborn’s most important resources. The city’s quickly vanishing canopy of oaks and maples add not only to the value of all our homes, they beautify our city and improve the overall quality of life in our community. For everyone.
It’s time for the administration and our city council to redefine its policy on tree removal. The city needs a clear process regarding how and why mature trees are removed from residential as well as business properties. A policy that demands the replacement of displaced trees. A policy with real teeth that punishes companies that participate in the destruction of Dearborn’s trees.
Only then can our city proudly reclaim our title as ‘Tree City.’
Posts
17 comments:
Hallelujah! I'm tired of seeing trees taken down all over Dearborn. It's such a terrible waste.
I drove down Chase Road the other day and my wife noticed that it looked like all the trees were gone. We couldn't believe it. That area used to be lush and now its destroyed. I agree Kerry-such a waste
This house used to be a show place. This new owner had the shrubs all dug out and just let weeds grow in their place. He doesn't mow his lawn, doesn't water his lawn and parks his SUV on the walk off his side door.
The sad and disturbing thing about the situation on Elmwood is that Mayor O'Reilly visited the site after calls by neighbors, including Doug Thomas. And he did nothing to stop it. I understand that the homeowner only had to pay $300 into a tree fund. What kind of deterrent is that?? These oak trees were over 100 years old -- planting a new 2" diameter tree cannot begin to replace a beautiful old tree.
This house was right across the street from Doug Thomas house.
Doug should be pissed off. I sure would be if some dummy did this across the street from me.
Meanwhile the trees that are half-dead due to ash bore are still standing....
Hit the nail right on the head on this one. I've seen beautiful shade trees pulled down for no good reason. Most cities make homeowners go through a pretty rigorous process to take down good trees, but any fly by night operator can take them down here.
It should be stipulated that Dearborn's trees can only be removed because of disease. If you don't want trees in your yard, move to another city. Next they'll be replacing all the green lawns with sand!!!
Autumn Leaf Lover in Dearborn
This is classic Dearborn politics. Pass an ordinance to keep one group happy and then not enforce it to keep the other group happy. It would be nice to have a mayor with some gonads. Hey Mayor O'Reilly, instead of worrying about offending a certain group of people (or God forbid, a lawsuit) do the right thing and enforce the city's ordinances!
In the Press and Guide, Saturday, Oct 24 O'Reilly is quoted as saying, “After I became mayor, issues came up where people were clear cutting their own properties,” he said. “We got right on it and developed a tree ordinance, which we’ve now adopted. The ordinance doesn’t say individual homeowners can’t cut down trees, but what it does require is if you’re going to cut down a tree 16 inches in diameter, you’re going to have to come in and register it so we know what you’re planning. It’s all about finding a balance.” Why do we need a registry of trees that have been cut down?
What a fantastic topic. For me it serves as a proxy for so many deeper, underlying issues. For one, it is a case study in personal property rights versus public interest. When should government officials be able to tell you in regard to your own personal property where your interests are superseded by the greater public's? More prescient though, I think it is a commentary on the clash of cultures that manifests itself in so many different ways in Dearborn. It's sort of like the "bigfoot" houses that tend to divide Westerners and Middle Easterners. Being thoroughly Western myself, I was wondering if anyone in our reading/posting audience who is of Middle Eastern descent could elucidate for us the seemingly cultural predisposition to cutting down trees that seems to exist among Middle Easterners? Also, what about circular driveways (as I hear that was the reason for the clear-cutting done in the picture above)? I loathe broad-brush painting, but in my own experiences with this tree issue it does seem overwhelmingly linked to the Middle Eastern community. Please enlighten.
When Dearborn voters keep voting in the same losers every 4 years (Hubbard!??!?! REALLY?!?!)-then it's f*cking ludicrous to expect any real change. Crap in=crap out.
It's not just residents, it's the city. My street's trees were decimated by the city, not by residents. And for what? To make the street 2 feet wider so people are more comfortable going 40 down a residential street? None of the trees removed were replaced by the city.
The city was also far behind others with dealing with the ash borer. I haven't checked it in a couple years but Grosse Pointe Farms had a pretty aggressive system of saving their ash trees when possible. I also remember ash borer money being used to give out trees to anyone one, not to replace ash trees that were removed.
It's really a surprise to me that the city maintains Tree City Status. It must not be very hard.
Tree City? They're joking right? I've never lived in a city with less regard for trees!!!!
Interesting Stuff - great post! It is definitely a cultural divide issue. I don't understand why one would move to another country only to try to recreate the country that one left. It is certainly not a good way to make friends with your new neighbors, that's for sure!! Only in America do we allow this disregard for our environment to occur.
There was also a homeowner on Wilson between N. York and N. Elizabeth that recently had one of Dearborn's beautiful shade trees cut down for their own selfish pleasure....
The last time I drove through the city I was saddened to see so many lush trees had disappeared. I assumed it was because of the ash borer and disease. I can't believe that homeowners are ripping them out and the city's allowing it! That's just awful.
Post a Comment