 Now here is a good one for you. First let me start by fessing up that I am a tree fanatic. I simply love trees! Not only do they provide shelter for birds and other native fauna, keep us cool, and help minimize global warming by removing carbon dioxide from the air, but they also contribute significantly to the value of a property and they are things of great strength and beauty in their own right. But the city of San Jose has gone too far in my opinion.
The City of San Jose loves trees too, and it has mandating street trees for a number of years in order to enhance the beauty of the city. Some time ago the city decided that, due to budget cuts, maintenance of the street trees, meaning regular pruning and shaping, would be the responsibility of property owners upon whose property the tree resides. The owner is also responsible for repairing the city sidewalks in front of the house if the tree roots damage the walkway. This is a big responsibility. Tree maintenance and street repairs can be pricey and it may be beyond the means of some struggling homeowners who have been told that they must own a street tree to maintain it properly. Still everybody benefits from the trees, including the homeowners, so there may be some just basis for imposing this responsibility on home owners.
Now the city has gone one further and declared that if a street tree falls into a city street, the homeowner is responsible for clearing the tree off the street. If the homeowner does not do it, the city will, but they will bill the owner and if the owner cannot pay for it, they will impose a lien against the homeowner.
This does not seem right to me. It would be different if the homeowner opted to plant the tree. Clearly, then, they would be responsible for its maintenance, upkeep, and, when required, its removal. But this is tantamount to a hidden tax on unsuspecting homeowners. Personally I spend thousands of dollars per year maintaining my trees, but that does not include the two street trees the city planted on my property. Fortunately I do not live in San Jose. If I had to maintain those two additional, fully grown trees, it would at least double my costs each year. I could afford it, but some of my neighbors might not be able to and might prefer to cut the trees down instead. That would damage the integrity of my neighborhood and we would all be losers. Now they would have to worry about their trees or some of their limbs falling every time a wind storm blew into town. Doesn't this consititute the "taking" of one's property? Maybe the city should try to think of some other way to encourage tree planting without imposing it on some people who may not be able to afford it! |
RSS Blog Feed