Many of you have offered to help find a way to educate the people in charge of development around trees. I agree that the publications I use and respect are written for me, the consulting arborist...not for my clients. So as a first step I have contacted a group of City Planner. One of the Board members lives near me. I hope to start a dialogue with him to find out 1) what sources (if any) are used by these people as input for design of developments around trees. Once I get an idea of where they are coming from then I think it is more possible to determine which area we (consulting arborists) should first attack.
You who have offered help should do the same in your areas. Find out where these people are getting their information (misinformation). If we all do a small part of this work - the task will become a little less formidable. Once we know our enemy we can plan the attack. Agreed? If any of you hae a better approach to this problem - - I am all eyes.
Russ - I hope this is an approved use of your BB. If not, let me know thank you all who have offered assistance in re-educating our planners, artichokes (lovely, term) and other willies out there. Keep in touch.

Reply to post by Dorothy Abeyta, on May 13, 1998 at 07:58:28:

Great post, Dorothy. If everyone does a little bit in their individual sphere of operations, we can do it. How about the possibility of approaching local landscape contractor/architect, property managers, developers, etc. associations to be able to give a talk to them about this problem. I think most of them would like to be educated as to all of their tree problems. Keep it up!
very treely,
Lew

Reply to post by Lew Bloch, on May 13, 1998 at 07:58:28:

Giving talks to groups involved in development, etc. is great on an individual basis. What I am hoping to accomplish with a group effort is 1) gathering information on the needs of planners and 2) find an approach (hopefully a consensus of opinion) to how we consulting arborists can best fill that need. I just think since we are all seeing the same problems - there must be something we are lacking in our past efforts at communication with the people in charge of developments. I want to find out what it is we (us guys) are missing. The answer I usually get from most arborists when asked why trees are damaged during constuction is that trees are secondary to dollars. I am guilty of this answer and find that I am often being flip instead of really analyzing the cause for construction related tree damage. I don't believe $$ is always the bottom line. It is just an easy answer. Being naturally nosey, I want to find out what these people in charge of planning think. With knowledge we are powerful and with all these brilliant arborist minds we will figure out a good working solution to educate and communicate with those planning developments around trees. But, maybe I'm just nosey. Willing to give it a go?

Reply to post by Dorothy Abeyta, on May 13, 1998 at 18:18:32:


Providing a viable arboricultural/development product is the first move. The product should encompass data which is sympathetic to the needs of the developer and/or the architect, whilst ensuring that all the relevant guide-lines for tree protective measures are included and as required by the planning authority. Keeping both sides happy is not always easy, but it can be done. Make appointments with these people, head to head discussions are vital and supplying an example of your product will help to educate them. It works for us!

Paul H.

Reply to post by Dorothy Abeyta, on May 13, 1998 at 18:18:32:

Great idea. Working together from the tree's standpoint is needed. Too many times the planners and politicians are wanting to preserve, retain and protect for the wrong reasons. This topic is new to the rocky mountain region and some developers are unhappy and frustrated. One question that keeps coming up, is if a developer is forced to retain a tree that is in decline, who is liable for possible failure. Let's keep talking.

Reply to post by Bill Cassel, on May 14, 1998 at 08:07:56:

Bill,
A major part of the preservation process involves
knowing which trees are in decline, so that we
do not save them. They will be worthless to the
property owner anyway, especially if the house
is designed to fit the tree that no longer exists.
Evidently the contractor has dealt with someone
who evaluated on current aesthetics rather than
on future aesthetics and health.
It sounds like you folks will have some interesting
discussion in the region by the time everyone agrees.
Good Luck!!
Bob

Reply to post by Bob Underwood, on May 29, 1998 at 10:44:49:

Bob, I agree that decisioins must be made on the viability of the trees. That's the arborist's job. I work for sevral municipalities, and my reference point is the ultimate buyer of the new property. If the tree doesn't have much chance of being a vibrant part of the landscape in 5 years, it probably isn't worth keeping. I think it is my responsibility to point out if a tree is unsafe (obviously), and that it will quickly become a liability to the new owners. This is especially important on "wooded lots", where people often pay premium prices to have trees. Too often they are stuck paying the premium, then having to pay to have trees removed that either weren't protected or shouldn't have been left in the first place. And finally, they end up with a property no longer "wooded", and of less value than they paid for it.

Many builders include a clause in the closing contract that they bear no responsibility for the trees after closing. Get that changed! Tell the realtors, the attornies, and even the builders to insist on some liability, even if it is just the cost of removal only. Then they will start to pay attention to your recommendations for proper protection.

Russ

Reply to post by Bill Cassel, on May 14, 1998 at 08:07:56:


One question that keeps coming up, is if a developer is forced to retain a tree that is in decline, who is liable for possible failure. Let's keep talking.

Answer: The last professional on site to make comments on its safe useful life expectancy. Very often the planning department arboricultural advisor as his/her insurance should cover things anyway.

Paul H.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on May 29, 1998 at 12:16:23:

your use of "wooded lots" promted this aside:

what do you do when on a property and it is predominantly invasives?

here in southern WI our oak/hickory forests are being choked out by understory thickets of buckthorn and honeysuckle.

To me this problem is as bad or worse then construction damage.

jps