Denver tree fines worry council
Several city reps say the plan may be too 'aggressive'
By Daniel J. Chacon, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published June 11, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Photo by Preston Gannaway / The Rocky
While watering a plum tree, Stephanie Nussbaumer takes off her son Lucas' wet shoe as his sister, Maya, stands by. Denver homeowners are responsible for the trees in the right of way, the strip of land between their property and the street.
CORRECTION: A previous version of this story should have said that Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper was surprised by the large number of citations expected to be issued against property owners who fail to care for trees in the public right of way. This error was corrected.
Concern is growing over a plan to levy fines on property owners in Denver who fail to maintain trees in the public right of way.
City officials are worried the new fines - ranging from $150 to $999 - will be burdensome to the poor and even discourage people from planting new trees.
At a Tuesday meeting, council members cautioned a representative for the Parks and Recreation Department to take it easy with the fines.
"That right of way is still something (that private property owners are) responsible for, but we can do a lot of injustice by getting too aggressive," said Councilwoman Jeanne Faatz.
Mayor John Hickenlooper was surprised by the large number of citations expected to be issued against property owners who fail to care for trees in the public right of way.
"We should look at how we can make it so that people know our rules or so that we're giving less citations," Hickenlooper said. "That's a lot of citations."
Councilman Charlie Brown questioned the city's motives.
"It almost sounds, shall we say, a little aggressive, punitive in a way," Brown said.
But city foresters say they're just trying to protect the tree canopy and prevent trees from falling on pedestrians or into traffic.
The city requires property owners to care for trees in their front yards and in the right of way - the strip of land between their property and the street.
When property owners fail to maintain trees - such as cutting a cracked branch or removing a diseased tree - the city may issue a notice telling them of the problem and how to correct it.
"Basically, it's been in the books for 50 years that people need to take care of the trees in the right of way or in their front (yards)," said Jill McGranahan, a parks and rec spokeswoman.
"This (proposal) is just giving us the authority to move forward with enforcing that," she said.
If the property owner doesn't meet the city's demands within 60 days, the Forestry Division is proposing to tack on a $150 fine when it issues a second notice.
The next fine would be $500 and the third would be $999.
McGranahan said the majority of citations stem from unhealthy, dead or dangerous trees.
But council members are concerned the new fines will create a financial hardship on residents.
Soon after he was elected, Councilman Paul Lopez said he got a call from an elderly woman ordered to remove a dying tree.
"This is a woman who physically can't get up with a chain saw and start hacking away, or even pay anybody," he said.
Lopez helped the woman secure federal funds through the city to take out the tree.
But Lopez, who wants the city to continue to make such funds available to low-income people, said he had been tempted to take matters into his own hands.
"We felt like going out there in the middle of the night and just starting to cut that thing down," he said.
A lawn by any other name
It's been called the "hell strip," the swath of green between the sidewalk and the street. But for those who call it anything special (the minority it seems), it goes by a variety of names:
* Parkway
* Tree lawn - apparently a Midwestern term
* Utility strip
* Verge - chiefly a British usage
Growth in citations
Denver's forestry inspectors are issuing hundreds of citations - without fines - annually to make sure the city's tree canopy is healthy and safe.
* 2005 - 1,598
* 2006 - 2,069
* 2007 - 2,165
What's next?
A proposed ordinance would authorize the Forestry Division to issue administrative citations ranging from $150 to $999. The change must be approved by the City Council.
chacond@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5099
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Legislature Blog
Read live updates from the opening of the 2009 legislative session.
-
Rocky multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Who's next?
Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.
-
Rocky year in photos
View an audio slide show of staff selections from 2008.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs
-
Shanahan's career
See photos from Mike Shanahan's career as Broncos coach.
-
12 days of Drew
Look back at the year that has been with Drew Litton.
-
A dream fulfilled
A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production
June 11, 2008
1:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
happymike44 writes:
Then it seems to be aimed at the property owner with money to me.
It is a nice concept to care for the trees.
But why should someone be made to pay for tree maintence when the property belongs to the city.
Also the adverse effect could be people removing trees so they will not be fined for a tree in the front of their home.
I think this fine will cause more harm then good.
Also how will you collect these fines if someone is to poor.
It should be the cities problem since the taxpayers already pay taxes why should they have to pay more in fines.
Like I said people might remove tees to avoid getting fined in the near future.
June 11, 2008
6:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Alive writes:
Another example of what happens when today's dysfunctional "leaders" act. I swear that every one of these people are out of their league.
Denver has MUCH bigger fish to fry. All this to look good for a bunch sleazy politicians. What a waste.
June 11, 2008
6:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
psychoChicken writes:
The above article is pretty much why many cities require developers to install streets with sidewalks attached to the back of curb. Tree lawns look nice when maintained properly, but are more expensive to install and maintain, particularly since irrigating tree lawns less than 8' - 10' wide is tough to do efficiently in a dry climate. Folks are always surprised that trees themselves cost money to maintain, and either seem to buy homes with large trees, or plant trees that will become large... these frequently mature and grow up through power lines, causing power outages following wet snows when branches fall. The theory behind the tree lawn, which goes back to the rise of the automobile, is that separating the sidewalk from the street keeps pedestrians (kids) out of the street, although I have never seen tangible evidence of such beyond my own limited observation. The tree maintenance rule has been there for a long time - sort of like the requirement that the homeowner remove snow from the sidewalk in the ROW - and is traditionally only sporadically enforced. Requiring homeowners to maintain the right of way behind the curb & gutter actually keeps city government (relatively) small when I consider the alternative. I cringe to think of how large the city's budget would have to be if it was required to maintain every tree lawn in town... or the amount of screaming we would get to enjoy if the city decided that it would embark on a program of paving all of the tree lawns to avoid maintenance hassles.
June 11, 2008
7 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
It's a great concept. Now, pass a law making property owners responsible to maintain the street in front of their house to the middle of the street. Then, the property owner provides for street maintenence, paving, potholes, snow removal, etc., saving the government the tax money and the manpower. Then pass a law making the home owner responsible for ticketing speeders on that same piece of road turning the receipts over to the government of course. Think of the possibilities!
June 11, 2008
8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
The_Punnisher writes:
Why not get the P&R people OFF THEIR COLLECTIVE @SSES and DO THIS JOB???
Didn't we just have an investigative report on these lazy slobs some time ago??
If the P&R people have time to go on errands and goof off on OUR DIME, then this would be a way to put these folks to some good use...
AFTER ALL, WHO PAYS THEIR SALARY???
June 11, 2008
8:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Attaching the sidewalk to the curb to create a curb walk is an miserable design. Walking on those is like walking in the street. Speeding cars fling gravel at you and it feels like they could come up on the sidewalk and run you over without a moment's notice. But there's something even worse.
Lawns are often graded down towards the roadway. Curb walks are often slanted towards the street. A natural grade for a walkway ought to be level at 90 degrees to the direction of travel. Walking any appreciable distance on a sideways-slanted walkway is uncomfortable and bad for your posture because you're repeatedly placing one foot higher than the other. This means that curb walks are only ideal for people who have one leg shorter than the other...and only good for one direction.
I knew a woman once who loved walking on those cockeyed things. Her name was Eileen. When I took her the wrong way on a mountain trail, she fell over sideways down a hill. It took us three days to find her as she spiraled all the way back up to the summit.
June 11, 2008
8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
SockRayBlue writes:
The tree lined streets in Denver are a delight and have been for many years. The Denver citizens were proud of those trees. Now Denver wants to make it mandatory that those very same trees are taken care of or the owner of the home is fined. Perhaps those trees are now due for some kind of "blight" and one by one they start to disappear. One would think that the "city people with great ideas" would reconsider their punitive thinking.
June 11, 2008
8:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
sprinkles writes:
There is a simple solution. Instead of non-violent prisoners having expensive exercise rooms and alloted time to work-out, they could provide useful service to the community. Use prisoners to maintain the trees on the city owned right-of-way. Non-violent prisoners should be working 40 hours a week for the community that is paying for their incarceration. It will teach them work habits and skills to use after release.
June 11, 2008
9:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
jd writes:
My neighbor spiked his tree so it would die then told the city that the tree was dead and cut it down before they could come by and see that he did it on purpose. And that was more than a dozen years ago. I think he's eyeing my tree now so he won't have to rake anymore leaves. Although he's happy for the shade when he has it.
June 11, 2008
9:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Can't citizens fine the city when they don't maintain right of ways properly. How often do we see land with weeds growing several feet, yet homeowners doing the same thing get ticketed and fined. How often do we see diseased or dying trees on city property, yet they don't seem concerned about that, as long as citizens take care of their property. We're not supposed to water during the day, but the city does, and it seems half of it runs into the street. A tree growing on one property, but hanging over another property, leaves the other property owner responsible for maintaining the tree over their property, yet the city has different laws for them. They don't maintain trees or land that belong to them in cases like this.
June 11, 2008
10:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
280Pagoda writes:
Parks and Recreation cannot be trusted to manage and enforce this program without a host of problems, not the least of which will be arbitrary and capricious enforcement. This is the same Park and Rec that once fined a business $4,700 for cutting down a tree that the Denver Fire Prevention Department had ordered cut down because it was a fire hazard.
Now we are going to turn them loose on the citizens of Denver? The City Council had better nip this in the bud,(pardon the pun), or realize they will have lots more angry citizens in their offices in the near future if enacted.
June 11, 2008
2:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
I was born and raised in Lincoln, Nebraska which had many of its streets lined with Elm trees. The Dutch Elm disease ravaged the city's trees. All trees that were in the right-of-way were trimmed, cut down, etc by THE CITY! The city, and its contractors, were busy every summer removing diseased trees. The home owner's responsibility for right-of-way maintenance was to water and mow the grass. That's it. Major stuff is the responsibility of the city.
Obviously Denver is too busy spending their tax revenue on other things to be able to take care of their own properties.
Scott
June 11, 2008
2:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
JSeifert writes:
Cut all the trees in the right of way down and concrete them over problem solved.
June 11, 2008
3:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
cpd writes:
Tell you what, Hick. I'll maintain your trees when you start plowing my street.
June 11, 2008
5:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
gs writes:
Kay,
We've heard it all before from you. And you were in the newspaper too. I won't say trouble follows you around but I will say I've heard it before. No need to tell us again. Thnks.