Thursday, September 8, 2016

Despite push for full-time, pensioned "Lorax" on staff, city decides to massacre 2nd & 3rd Street ficus trees

November 2015:
Encinitas officials are looking for an in-house arborist who can speak for the trees.

Call it the city’s very own Lorax.

The council at last week’s meeting voted unanimously to direct City Manager Karen Brust to determine if they can staff the position in-house with existing personnel.
September 2016:
Four massive ficus trees in downtown Encinitas will be removed within the coming weeks, despite a neighborhood push to save the towering plants.

Public Works Director Glenn Pruim delivered that news during an emotion-packed community meeting Tuesday, saying the purpose of the gathering was to collect input on how to replace the trees — not to revisit the city’s decision to yank them.

Dozens of people said the targeted trees — two in the 600 block of Second Street and two in front of rental housing at 1011 Third Street — are an integral part of the neighborhood’s character and help soften the effects of noise from downtown bars and restaurants.

"We have been under siege for years ... (removing the trees) is going to make it worse," said Third Street resident Joe McNelley.
Next to meet the city's chain saws: Leucadia's historic eucalyptuses.

24 comments:

  1. Fricken crazy!!

    And the City Manager is allowing this??

    City council better step in. Staff is using bad judgment again !!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it hasn't become obvious to you by now, this city manager won't make waves. she appears to grovel at city council meetings - she will do what she is told. All she needs to know is who calls the shots - that's the stooges put in by the developers and land holders. She won't accomplish a thing regarding reform.

      Delete
  2. The city council approved it during closed session. One of the property owners filed a lawsuit against the city.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In other areas, they've shaved down the sidewalks to even them up and could do trenching to severe the offending roots and place a barrier to prevent regrowth. Removal is just the easiest option.
      Get Sabine to be the tree expert - he is usually up one with most of his opinions and he has lots of free time.

      Delete
    2. I agree, if the powers that be tried thinking outside the box, the trees could be saved. These beautiful specimens were here long before the City was incorporated, probably long before the current property owners bought their properties. They should be considered heritage trees.

      It's too bad that this is considered a "done deal," and that the city is now only interested in getting input as what should replace the trees, NOT in trying to save them.

      I remember the owner of Potato Shack, Jim testifying how he and his customers love the trees, years ago. The City was able to put off taking them out. There are ways the so-called "liabilities" could be mitigated. With ingenuity, and determination; in other words, where there's a will there's a way.

      Unfortunately, our city council doesn't have the will to help preserve our community character and our heritage trees. I remember so clearly the many times I enjoyed the lovely bird song by flocks of songbirds perched in the trees.

      Why is it that our contracted "arborists" are paid by the tree? That encourages more and more trees to be cut down.

      Exactly which property owners allegedly sued the city? Because typically, the land in front of one's home or place of business is actually part of one's private property, although there are public easements for sidewalks, which easements the city maintains, together with the property owners.

      This is why we should have had a tree ordinance to protect older trees. The trees removed in Leucadia Roadside Park were NOT rotten. Many older trees have hollow sections, but we saw the trees, once cut on the flatbed trucks that hauled them away. They looked solid; what a shame.

      So many decisions made out of fear of "liability," without really investigating alternatives, and without giving the public a true voice, or choice.

      Notice how when you type in the word "arborist," it becomes underlined in red. Spellcheck doesn't recognize that word. It really only means someone who is "authorized" to cut trees. The City doesn't need another "yes person arborist" on staff to do the bidding of the City Attorney or nervous staff who don't understand the real liability of losing part of our beloved heritage.

      Delete
  3. Manuel, the guy that rakes the leaves at the park, is the arborist!

    ReplyDelete
  4. City staff are tree murderers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 50 years gone with the roar of a chain saw!

      Delete
  5. I thought a certified arborist had to have some training and credentials; maybe the Wizard of Oz can confer it on someone magically!

    ReplyDelete
  6. You get the experience to become an Arborist by cutting down trees. Go figure!

    We need a city botanist, not hackers.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Council:

    Arborist? I thought we were hiring "our barista." You know, for our meetings.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Our city hates us. It's that simple. All we are good for is to keep the salaries and pensions going. By the way, even when you chop a tree down, the roots keep growing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1:35 Not if you remove the roots along with the tree.

      Delete
  9. Hate to break it to you folks but ficus tress, like just about every other living thing, have a lifespan. Even if efforts are made to preserve them now, these trees will not last forever. I very much like these trees too and will miss them. It's a bummer to see them go. But I also recognize that ficus become very destructive to sewers, sidewalks and building foundations in their old age. These trees are unfortunately past their prime and have become a liability. The sad but responsible action is to replace them. And nope, I don't work for the city - I'm just a practical (yet tree loving) observer. Change is hard but planting trees in the middle of a downtown city block is always a temporary endeavor.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Good thing the headline to this thread isn't inflammatory.

    The problems with Ficus trees isn't new. Here is a link to a LA Times article in 1996:

    "Ficus' Shady Reputation Prompts Change in Scenery"

    http://articles.latimes.com/1996-03-13/news/mn-46543_1_ficus-tree

    ReplyDelete
  11. You can't expect a rigged system to be fixed by the people who rigged - that is what presidential candidate Donald Trump says

    ReplyDelete
  12. Everyone who testified at the Save The Trees Meeting should be forced to clean up after them and pay for all the damage they do, daily, weekly, monthly and annually.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would anyone exercising their right to address a government body be forced to do anything? Please explain...

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    2. Fricken tree hater. Move to El Cajon

      Delete
    3. You think it's bad now, wait until the Orpheus tree-shitter, er, sitter moves into said tree to save it.

      Seagulls got no game.

      Delete
  13. Hot news from city council agenda for Sept. 14 -

    Council to sell public works and water district property.

    On the council agenda -
    Discussion of whether to consider price and terms of the potential sale of property located at 160 Calle Magdalena, Encinitas, CA, APN 258-112-28-00. CITY NEGOTIATOR: Bob McSeveney, Management Analyst; TO NEGOTIATE WITH: Guesthouse Hotel Development, LLC - Jordan Scott.

    ReplyDelete
  14. All this points to what great fiscal shape the City is in! Let's continue to convert hard assets into new staff jobs and pensions.

    ReplyDelete