Few of us have given much thought to Joyce Kilmer, fine “woman” that he was, since we were forced to memorize his poems in grammar school, forever immortalizing the basic “tree.” I think we would have agreed then that very few poems we were forced to learn by rote are as beautiful as the green, wavy creatures that we see every day around us. When we found out later that Kilmer died in the muddy fields of France in 1918, it made him a bit more interesting—the tragic poet. Yet, that damn poem rang out in our minds, at least one line anyway.
Now, in Willow Glen, he pops up again. The weekend assassination of a few trees raised the ire of many neighbors and laid bare the seemingly inefficient and feckless regulatory arm of the city. Even the arrival of the police could not save the trees from speedy demise; they were slaughtered as the police, neighbors, and other interested parties just watched. It seems that the cops could not communicate with anyone at the city to ascertain whether a permit had been issued. Sad. Incompetent. Inscrutable. Here in the capital of Silicon Valley, with computers in each squad car, no one could get a simple answer online.
It is always easier in a twisted “religious” logic, to seek forgiveness rather than ask permission. The tree murderers knew that. Unfortunately, it has been proven true for the trees of Willow Glen. But there is something larger here to note. It points to what many feared has occurred in the recent past in San Jose: namely, the competence meter is registering at an all time low; the initiative is at zero.
We desperately need to assert our competence and ability to get things done as a city. The recent article in the Mercury News, highlighting the relative inefficiency of the ballyhooed Team San Jose in achieving stated goals, paints a sad picture. Combine that with the “see no evil, hear no evil” approach of the Downtown Association, constantly misstating the problems of downtown and recommending the wrong solutions in their quest to be the “entertainment promoter,” and you have a tragically flawed environment for progress. There has been a sea change in leadership at the top—mayor, council, and neighborhood direction—but there is a gigantic unanswered question of how the city organization can function in running the trains on time. To mix metaphors, the trees of Willow Glen were the tip of the forest. What lies beneath is much more worrisome and is, I know, much on the minds of our new leaders at City Hall. It better be.
Tom, a fine amounting to something on the order of four or five thousand dollars just doesn’t cut it. That lot was near useless given the placement of the trees. I’d bet that the buyer paid far less than market value because of that.
Now that the trees are gone, the buyer can build yet another monster home. I’d suggest that, along with fines, the City demand replanting of new trees in exactly the same location, thereby preventing the owner from building a large home and making a killing when its sold.
I drove by as they were cutting the trees down and thought, “wow, how did they get a permit to do that?” Silly me. I agree with Greg, the city needs to have the owners replant trees in the exact same spot.
Tom—A couple of really interesting issues here: NIMBY rage and City ineptitude. First,
amazing, but unsurprising, that fancy WG folks should feel that big trees in the middle of a lot were theirs. Their real gripe was not the trees, but that they had had the benefit of a vacant lot. And it’s evil to build a house on it—but the house on their lot is AOK? And it’s w-r-o-n-g! to make money in America? The outraged neighbors don’t?? And who knows if it will be a monster home? It might be Eichler-esque. Only mistake the lot owner made was not waiting for the permit to remove the trees.
Sounds like he’d have received it. Also, the Murky played this to sell a paper or two in WG. Print just one side of the story, the side with the greatest number of subscribers. Took several days of “reporting” to find out the trees weren’t on the curb.
As for disconnect between cops and code en-
forcement, wouldn’t take much looking to find
incompetence and malice toward public service in every dept. of the city. There is NO
process in San Jose for any hearing regarding
city employees arbitrary and capricious—and expensive—“decisions”, of their own, or to please some politician. I have several examples. I’ve talked to Chuck about this, and Sam, but it’s not one of the Reed Reforms. Cleaning house in every Dept. ought to be the first priority of a new City Mgr.
Might save enough money to balance the budget if just half the time-servers were gone. Not going to happen with Les White. A real Ombudsman would work. George Green
Tom,
How about this example of city incompentence.
Go to the city’s web page: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/
Click on the link for “Customer Service Online”.
If you are behind any decent firewall, you will see an error message
Why? The city is using TCP port 8443. Most firewalls only allow the standard ports 80 and 443. Very, very dumb.
Let’s hope somebody in the city fixes this problem ASAP. I would complain to customer service department but….
Property owner and tree contractor are responsible by city code to comply with law while Code enforcement and Police are responsible to enforce city laws
All 4 directly Failed community
Who benefits
– Tree removal company earns fees if not caught which rarely happens on weekends since Code Enforcement is off and over worked Police do not respond or if they do can not stop illegal removal and many times nothing happens except trees are illegally removed for profit
– Home owner / developer gets larger house with higher value or greater profits by $100-300,000 for very small fine $2-5,000 as cost of doing business
Construction company hired by property owner who was on site during recent tree removal will get increased profits from building larger rather than smaller house and claims he has no responsibility for following law or telling property owner or removal company they are illegally removing tree while he watches
Which raises the question who actually hired or referred the tree removal company to illegally remove the tree on the weekend when it is well know that there is little or no enforcement – San Jose house contractor or out of town property owner?
Who loses
Community loses environment benefits of trees – increased cooling and oxygen while reducing carbon dioxide, damage to ozone layer and global warming
Neighbors lose increased property value of trees
Community loses more confidence in city government that public policy and laws are not routinely violated by those who profit from illegal actions
Basic public policy and legal principal that those involved in illegal actions should not be rewarded for their illegal actions is violated as they profit while community and public loses
Tom has laid out several recent examples of how our city bureaucracy is outdated and fails to solve critical urban problems. My hope is that the new city manager – with the encouragement of Mayor Reed and the City Council – can lead a community review of our city departments and programs for the purpose of a formal restructuring of our local government. Most large American cities establish a routine evaluation of their city bureaucracy so that more progressive, neighborhood-friendly and cost-effective trends in governance can be implemented.
George
Calling Willow Glen fancy or criticizing San Jose while you live in extra fancy Los Gatos known as NIMBY poster child for Bay area with very restrictive development policies is bit of hypocitical which is nothing new for George
Full disclosure about George –
“currently works as an independent property manager and developer “
http://www.community-newspapers.com/archives/lgwt/20021023/lg-education2.shtml
Yes – George and other developers – It is Wrong to build a larger house in San Jose or your home town Los Gatos – if it is done by illegally removing trees
Los Gatos enforces their illegal tree removal laws, heavily fines, immediately stops development and requires replacement in same location so those illegally removing trees do not benefit or profit from illegally removing trees
Really great how many Non San Jose people – Do As I Say (Not As I Do) Blog for Profit – on SJI –
Non Jose residents – Developers, Political consultants, Lobbyists, Contractors. San Jose / Silicon Valley Chamber members, BART supporters, Environmentalists, Silicon valley company executives, Major league sports owners, Regional and National politicians – did we miss anyone ?
tell us how to run San Jose – our home town – spend our tax money or having development or other policies for ” their greater good” so they can make more money but do not want the same in their home towns –
We welcome comments from San Jose residents
but if you are not a San Jose resident and comment on SJI – What about full disclosure –
Or you will be known as – SJI “Do As I Say (Not As I Do) Hypocrisy” Bloggers for Profit
Did anyone attend the Budget meeting last Saturday? Five items were picked for presentation to the Mayor and the Council. Guess what #2 was, Code Enforcement. Image that. This dept. is so encompetent that the only way to fix it would be to start from scratch. I was also amazed about all the coverage on the tree removal. I agree that the owners and the tree removal company should be heavily fined and the owner of the lot should be required to replace the trees on the same location. I would like to see equal coverage by the Merccury News on other neighborhood issues. While we have left a number of messages about wishing to discuss our issues about the EVP project, we find that we don’t carry the clout of the Willow Glen residents. So much for fair and equal coverage by our local newspaper.
For #5 above, no luck yet getting the situation fixed with the city’s “Customer Service Online”.
1) Called the number for customer service department: waited on hold for 10 minutes. No answer.
2) Called the main number listed for the mayor’s office and explained the problem. Transferred to the Vice Mayor’s office for some unknown reason.
3) Explained the problem to the person who answered in Cortese’s office. She offered very little help in trying to solve this problem.
I will try a few more times to find somebody in city hall who can address this problem.
Before accusing the Willow Glen property owner of acting in conflict with this city’s commitment to its urban forest we should at least find out if he intends for his newly-cleared property a smart glass dome surrounded by stark pavement.
Tom Mac,
unreal. Now the downtown association and night life are the cause of trees being chopped down in willow glen. you would make Bush’s PR spinners really prowd!
Man, you really need to get a life; a small blue pill, or something.
“TREES – The San Jose Version”
I think that I shall never again see
Willow Glen’s 3 departed trees.
Trees whose trunks stood in the way
Of some developers big payday.
Three trees that looked at God all day,
While Code Enforcement looked the other
way.
Three trees that for generations had grown
Where some clown wanted a monster home
With leaves of green upon their crown
Ah what the hell, let’s chop ‘em down.
Blogs are made by fools like me,
But only God can make a tree.
With apologies to Joyce Kilmer.
I share in the widespread public outrage over this incident. City Hall urgently needs to take steps to keep it from happening again.
There is obviously a big disconnect between the public, city, police and code enforcement. The officers on the scene should have been instructed to stop the destruction until the required documentation was produced. Anyone who has these permits should be able to show them immediately and, if not, the police should be able to keep the offenders from violating a city ordinance they are surely sworn to uphold. Officers should have training in this area; but, why are there no code enforcement officers on duty that can be called to the site of such an incident?
It is clear that more could be done. It’s a no-brainer. Trees are way too important to our city’s environment to treat cavalierly. Stronger ordinances specifying much stiffer penalties must be enacted and a system of enforcement that allows for immediate action must be put in place. We don’t need expensive studies or expert opinion, but a strongly empowered Tree Commission would be useful. If a mature tree is healthy and is not posing a real danger to the public, then it shouldn’t be possible to cut it down unless there are exceptional circumstances and any such application to do so must go through a properly structured approval process. It doesn’t matter where it is within the city limits. Furthermore, it should be required that any tree lawfully removed should be replaced by a similar one planted nearby.
Private owners’ property rights do not take precedence over private property owners’ responsibilities. Removal of healthy mature trees from any residential neighborhood must be the exception, not the rule. It has taken many decades to grow the beautiful canopy of trees in the Willow Glen district. They provide a very pleasant environment, shade from the summer sun (often lowering the temperature by ten degrees or more), oxygen and homes for urban wildlife. Anyone removing healthy trees without hard-won authority should face stiff fines (like $25,000 or more per violation) and be required to replace a tree so removed with one of similar type and maturity. That would be very expensive and a true deterrent to further incidents.
With trees being on private property and not in the parking strip, there is an extra twist involved in the removal process. While I don’t feel anyone should be prevented from removing a tree or trees from private property, there are exceptions when it comes to so-called “heritage” trees. I am a tree lover, and tried in vain several years ago to save one of the original parking strip trees from the “Poplar City” development in the College Park/Rosegarden area. The city’s arrogant aroborist at the time, Mark Beaudoin or whatever, deemed the tree removable. The stump that was left proved the tree was in good health and had many years of providing beauty and history left in it. The city arborist had an “I know better than you do” approach to doing his job and this town has fewer large old trees because of it. I can only hope his replacement doesn’t have the same affinity for chain saws.
I see the fines and requirements to replace the trees with new ones exactly where the chopped ones were as rather lame rules. As has been stated, the fines are nothing compared to the money that stands to be made on building a monster home on the property. It was a no-brainer for the property owners to take those trees down one way or another, fines or no fines, they’d still make a killing. Planting the same type of tree in the same place isn’t going to change anything for at least 30 years, if not longer. I’d say if you want the tree replacement part of enforcement to work, you need to require a tree with a trunk of a certain minimum diameter, which could cost into the thousands depending on the tree, and have it professionally planted to assure it will survive. Having “Our City Forest” put a pencil of a tree in place of one you couldn’t get your arms around is hardly a reasonable form of restitution. Give any re-working of the ordinance some teeth and require the largest possible specimen available as the replacement. Property owners like the Holts can certainly afford that.
It is a waste of money to have code enforcement staffed 24/7. Illegal tree cutting is not an everyday occurrence.
SJPD needs to enforce the laws on the books. Their unwillingness to ask the tree contractor or any contractor to stop until a permit can be verified unacceptable.
Equally unacceptable is SJPD’s unwillingness to enforce litter laws. No crime should be too petty for our city’s largest department to enforce.
It was a black day.
I happened upon the scene.
All that was left was the police chalk outline of where the tree had lain. A little chalk outline of a squirrel was nearby.
That image will be forever seared, seared! into my memory.
So that I can begin my healing journey, I am hereby starting a petition to enact a special tax of 500% on all chainsaw sales in San Jose.
The proceeds go to fund the installation of a city wide network of microphones which listens for the sound of chainsaws and in turn autodials a citizen army of Prius huggers on standby, ready to roll quietly at up to 30-35 mph, and armed with designer cellphones and thermoses of socially conscious coffee.
I think this is just the cause to put San Jose on the national map. Mess with our kids? Maybe. Mess with our trees? Hell no!
Murdering trees? Eightfour people died in Iraq the other day.
Let’s start with property rights—now I’m an environmentalist—I support saving the planet, I drive a hybrid, I support the Sierra Club.
I oppose cutting down ancient redwoods on public lands and preserving private lands that are zoned for that purpose.
But residents should be able to determine what trees stay and what trees go on their own residential property.
If it’s a City tree, different issue.
But if the tree belongs to the property owner, they have a right to cut it down—unless it has been declared an historic landmark and the property is deeded as such.
All this crying over the trees—really folks—get a grip.
Our police have better things to do than spy on people utilizing their own property. Those who say it would lead to the deforestation of the urban area fail to recognize—most people like their trees.
Those who don’t should be able to cut them down. It’s not PC, but we already have too many laws intruding on us.
BTW: Anybody want to outlaw spanking? For the record I oppose violence in any form on children.
But do we really need a law?
I recall all too well when the city arborist cut down the hugh Elm tree at the corner of 3rd and St James. The arborist claiming it was sick. The movie that was shot at that corner MAD CITY was sicker than the tree.
The next tree to be fallen at St James park was the huge euculyptus tree across the street from the Fresh Bake Eatery on third st. That became additional parking for the staff at the Senior Center.
Who makes this happen?
The Village Black Smith
Novice, your humor tells me you’re bit of an arse. Rich, about spankings, I’d bet, if Cindy were mayor, she’d be spanking you right now for your stance on neighborhood trees.
P. Bunyan
I said residential property owners, not developers. And who gave you the right to dictate to your neighbors the character of their personal property?
The value of a tree is extremely relative.
For instance, nobody can touch those Palms in downtown—until the Grand Prix comes to town.
Then let’s get ‘em out of the way of the cars.
Cupertino has its own problem with over-regulation of properties and trees.
Again, most people like trees. But the over-regualtion by government is a far more destructive evil, than a chainsaw in the hands of property owner.
The urban forest will not disappear if you leave common sense in the hands of individual property owners.
As for developers, most replace trees they take down on an average of 2-1. They go out of their way to accomodate old trees, especially Oaks and actually design around them.
They also help eliminate, at their expense, sick trees, that are a danger to humans and property.
Some developments are bad, some developments are good. I only support those that are beneficial to the community and environmentally sensitive.
P.S. You may be right, Cindy might well disagree with me on the tree issue.
Sneaky Anonymous Snipers—For your info, I don’t live in Los Gatos; I live in the county. But I’ve been in downtown SJ for 27 years taking care of my many tenants, paying taxes, putting up with surly city employees (one of whom, ignoring Underground Service Alert (USA) drilled through the sewer line of one of my properties w/ terrible expense and consequence to me, and none at all to the employee). Your info is outdated. I’m no longer a property developer (an honorable occupation despite your insinuation; after all, you and everyone else on this blog lives in a developed space.) I gave it all up because Cindy happily harassed me for 8 years. Too bad because even you would have liked what I planned. The Planners did—but they have little or nothing to say, with NIMBYS and political lackys in control. Anyway, would still like to know the basis for “neighborly” rage over cutting down trees in the middle of one’s own property—or even why you’d need a permit to do it. Where does this arrogance come from? If these folks like the trees—and the vacant lot—the REAL issue—get together and BUY IT. The real outrage was cutting down thousands of acres of fruit trees (that I drove throgh delightedly for years and years as a kid) to build mostly ugly tract houses for the fools now , way too late, hugging the wrong trees.George Green
Well I never thought I’d see the day, but I agree with RR about the an individual’s property rights. George Orwell must be shaking his head at this point.
Or, if necessary, as encouragement to homeowners to preserve trees, perhaps their could be stipends that residential home owners could apply for to help maintain aging trees.
Certainly, I am a preservationist and again agree with RR that the majority of infractions are done by developers, not individuals.
I could just see more stringent laws affecting home sales, can you just see realtors having to check if trees must be maintained on residential property?
If somebody is shopping around for a piece of property and settles on one that has one or more large “heritage” trees on it, then they should either already know the ramifications of buying a property with such trees on it, or they need to be informed somewhere in the purchase process. If somebody feels that “heritage” trees will be an issue for them, then maybe they shouldn’t buy that property.
There is definitely an element in play here regarding where the subject tree is located within the city limits. Willow Glen is very tree-friendly and proud of its shady streets, etc. Other parts of town are less vigilant. I know from first-hand experience that you can remove a supposed “heritage” sized tree on private property in broad daylight in the middle of the week and have nobody complain and in some cases draw cheers from neighbors instead. It just depends on the type of tree and most of all, neighborhood you live in.
Tom,
Three trees may change the look and feel of the city for decades to come.
For the last 8 years under the Mayor, his budget director, Council Whip and rubber stamp votes on council and his ‘yes-man’ City Manager, the City Staff has been neutered, demoralized and deemed worthless by the all-knowing movers and shakers of the council chambers. Between lobbyists and special interests backed by those in power, staffers at many levels have been rendered clerks of the monied interests.
These staffers live in our city. They pay taxes, vote and do what they can to improve not only their lot, but that of people city wide, (when they can). Yes it has not be easy or very rewarding for many. They work hard and want to be proud of what they do; but are often viewed as part of an increasingly ineffective and corrupt organization, and that has to hurt.
With community support and empowerment from the new Mayor this should change. People want to make a difference and take pride in being effective. Given the chance and encouragement, they will.
Willow Glen’s voice, Rob Davis’s letter, Council and Staff support are great examples of how synergy and sunsine can move San Jose toward changing things. It’s a bottom up process and it does not happen over night. I’m optimistic and hopeful.
Great to have Rich surface again. Amazing how he knows what is right and wrong in every situation. Too bad he’s wrong, again. Unbelievable that he thinks people should be able to cut down whatever trees they want, regardless of their size, age, or health. This city would be even bleaker if Rich had his way. Can you imagine if Cindy had won and surrounded herself with folks who think like Rich??
Using Rich’s “logic”, people (in most cases that means developers) should decide what is best for the community (meaning what will make them the most money). If Rich had his way our streets would soon consist of monster homes with no trees. Thanks anyway Rich, but I’d prefer a neighborhood of homes that match the character of the neighborhood and have many heritage trees around them.
Please keep your chainsaw in Cupertino and leave our trees alone. Thanks.
So Richard, how’s that political counsulting career work out for you?
David D.,
Career is fine, as for the future I am optimistic and hopeful.