City Howl Help Desk: Tree's a crowd when it's dead
By Ben Waxman
Philly.com, March 24, 2010
A few months ago, we launched City Howl, a Web site that allows citizens to post their raves or rants about city services (see www.thecityhowl.com).
Every week, we'll publish highlights of our investigations into some of these problems.
The problem: Kevin Long, who lives on a narrow block between Lombard and Pine, is concerned about a dead tree that towers over his house.
"The trees are Norwegian maple trees. All the homes are three-story brick rowhomes. All the trees tower over the homes," he said.
It sounds picturesque, but Long thinks the trees may be a safety hazard.
"The one in front of my home is diseased," he explained, as is another down the block. "When we have high winds, the bark falls off and branches fall down. I'm waiting for the day that a branch falls and takes out one of the power lines on the block."
A contractor gave a quote of $1,000 to remove it, and told Long he would need a permit from Fairmount Park, which has jurisdiction over trees in public spaces. The city actually does remove problem trees free of cost, he explained, but there is a long waiting list for the service.
Long called Fairmount Park and was told that the tree in front of his house has actually been marked for removal since 2007. Budgets dictate that only trees that present an immediate danger can be removed.
The danger seemed pretty immediate to Long.
What we found: We're not tree experts, but the one in front of Long's house looks dead to us. It's not particularly big, but the bark is peeling off and its limbs could easily snap during a storm. Two other trees on his block are in similar condition.
What we did: We took Long's complaint straight to the top, to Mark Focht, executive director of Fairmount Park. He supervises the park's staff, including 14 arborists, who are responsible for the well-being of nearly 2.5 million city trees.
About 135,000 of those are "street trees" like the one in front of Long's house. If a tree has become a safety hazard, residents can report the problem through 311 or their City Council member. "Street tree removal is constantly related to how much funding we get," Focht said. "Some trees cost a couple hundred dollars, but larger ones cost several thousand."
Focht confirmed that because of budget limitations, the park can only remove trees that pose an immediate safety hazard. That means large trees that could cause a house to collapse, or branches hanging dangerously over busy city streets.
The budget for tree removal is especially limited right now because of the bad weather this winter. Fairmount Park's staff dealt with 300 tree emergencies during just one of the big blizzards in February. Bottom line: even fewer resources to remove naturally diseased trees.
The outcome: We asked Focht if there is any way to expedite the process. He said that unless a tree is truly dangerous, it's pretty unlikely the city will remove it - and the tree by Long's house has been deemed to be not dangerous. Long can pay for the removal himself if he gets a permit and uses a city-licensed arborist. Of course, Long said he'd prefer not to do that.
Here's another idea: Why not work with others on block to share the cost of removing the trees? After all, the one in front of Long's house doesn't just affect his property. Maybe Long and his neighbors could pitch in, share in the cost of tree removal and over time, get all three problem trees removed.
Every week, we'll publish highlights of our investigations into some of these problems.
The problem: Kevin Long, who lives on a narrow block between Lombard and Pine, is concerned about a dead tree that towers over his house.
"The trees are Norwegian maple trees. All the homes are three-story brick rowhomes. All the trees tower over the homes," he said.
It sounds picturesque, but Long thinks the trees may be a safety hazard.
"The one in front of my home is diseased," he explained, as is another down the block. "When we have high winds, the bark falls off and branches fall down. I'm waiting for the day that a branch falls and takes out one of the power lines on the block."
A contractor gave a quote of $1,000 to remove it, and told Long he would need a permit from Fairmount Park, which has jurisdiction over trees in public spaces. The city actually does remove problem trees free of cost, he explained, but there is a long waiting list for the service.
Long called Fairmount Park and was told that the tree in front of his house has actually been marked for removal since 2007. Budgets dictate that only trees that present an immediate danger can be removed.
The danger seemed pretty immediate to Long.
What we found: We're not tree experts, but the one in front of Long's house looks dead to us. It's not particularly big, but the bark is peeling off and its limbs could easily snap during a storm. Two other trees on his block are in similar condition.
What we did: We took Long's complaint straight to the top, to Mark Focht, executive director of Fairmount Park. He supervises the park's staff, including 14 arborists, who are responsible for the well-being of nearly 2.5 million city trees.
About 135,000 of those are "street trees" like the one in front of Long's house. If a tree has become a safety hazard, residents can report the problem through 311 or their City Council member. "Street tree removal is constantly related to how much funding we get," Focht said. "Some trees cost a couple hundred dollars, but larger ones cost several thousand."
Focht confirmed that because of budget limitations, the park can only remove trees that pose an immediate safety hazard. That means large trees that could cause a house to collapse, or branches hanging dangerously over busy city streets.
The budget for tree removal is especially limited right now because of the bad weather this winter. Fairmount Park's staff dealt with 300 tree emergencies during just one of the big blizzards in February. Bottom line: even fewer resources to remove naturally diseased trees.
The outcome: We asked Focht if there is any way to expedite the process. He said that unless a tree is truly dangerous, it's pretty unlikely the city will remove it - and the tree by Long's house has been deemed to be not dangerous. Long can pay for the removal himself if he gets a permit and uses a city-licensed arborist. Of course, Long said he'd prefer not to do that.
Here's another idea: Why not work with others on block to share the cost of removing the trees? After all, the one in front of Long's house doesn't just affect his property. Maybe Long and his neighbors could pitch in, share in the cost of tree removal and over time, get all three problem trees removed.