Virginia Park Neighbors Statement of Concern about Ann Arbor Forestry Department Tree Removal Practices June 26, 2009 Neighbors in the vicinity of Virginia Park are distressed by the recent removal of many mature and healthy trees in our area. We have gathered together to express our concern, even alarm, about current forestry management practices in Ann Arbor, in hopes of preventing further tree destruction in our area and all Ann Arbor neighborhoods. We value the canopy of mature trees that shade our neighborhood and the entire city (Ann Arbor boasts our name is “Tree Town”). Trees, especially large mature shade trees, provide a more healthy environment by consuming CO2 and producing oxygen, their shade reduces energy consumption (air-conditioning), their water consumption reduces storm water run off, and their aesthetic quality improves property values (while dead trees and dead stumps detract from property values). We believe the mission of Ann Arbor’s Forestry department should be to preserve the mature canopy of trees as much as possible, while planning for timely replacement and augmentation as our older trees die off (since it takes 20 – 30 years for a newly planted tree to gain enough height to provide true shade). The recent evidence in this neighborhood, where at least 10 large, old, and healthy trees (all had a healthy canopy of leaves) were cut down, while several completely DEAD trees remain standing, calls into question the philosophy and/or the management of the forestry department. In our point of view, city trees are ‘owned’ collectively by the citizens of Ann Arbor, all of the neighbors and passers-by, not by the nearest property owner. Yet “property-owner request” was the reason given by city staff for removal of these 10 living and still viable trees. We support the removal of dangerous limbs and even trees, if they pose a bona fide safety issue for people and homes. But, the removal of a tree, at a cost of thousands of taxpayer dollars, is not justified when careful trimming of dead branches would protect passers-by and property. Nor is tree removal justified to save the few hundred dollars it costs to replace a few buckled sidewalk slabs. In the aftermath of the Emerald Ash Borer destruction of thousands of trees in Ann Arbor (many in our neighborhood), and in light of the city budget crisis (vital community services cut, such as staffing of our police force), how can the city justify cutting down healthy trees? Surely, putting the priority on removing dead trees, pruning trees that need it, and planting new trees, is a more effective use of taxpayer dollars! We also believe that the Forestry department’s new planting restrictions, limiting tree size based on width of lawn extensions, is counter-productive to maintaining “the canopy of Ann Arbor.” The 50 to 80 year old trees in this neighborhood have thrived in their 5 to 6 foot lawn extensions all these years, with very little damage to surrounding infrastructure. To replace Ann Arbor’s “canopy” we must plant tree species in our old neighborhoods that will eventually grow into large shade trees! We think the following should form a part of Ann Arbor’s forestry policy: 1) Ann Arbor’s forestry department must be philosophically committed to the preservation of trees and to maintaining the ‘tree canopy’ of Ann Arbor. 2) Ann Arbor’s forestry department must be staffed with highly-qualified and well-experienced people, who are mentored in our preservation philosophy and practices. 3) The preferred practice is to trim, rather than to remove, mature trees. Trees with dead limbs shall be trimmed, not removed, unless in the judgment of several qualified foresters the tree is deemed to be dead, or imminently dangerous. 4) The city shall not use newly imposed restrictions (such as overhead wires, extension width, and tree spacing) as an excuse to remove a mature, healthy tree. 5) If a homeowner requests removal of a tree, neighbors who benefit from that tree’s canopy (within a 200 yard radius of it) should have a say in the tree’s removal (similar city ‘variance requests’ exist for such things as fences and keeping chickens). 6) If a homeowner insists on removing a tree, or if a contractor / developer damages a tree to the extent that it needs to be removed, s/he/they should pay the full cost of removing the tree, including the stump, and for replacing it. 7) If a tree must be removed, the stump should be removed within 6 months and a new tree planted within one year, during an appropriate planting season.