Comments on: Neighbors’ trees block his view

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 19:14:09 +0000

I keep thinking the Baker’s property with the larger trees being replaced by smaller trees does not decrease in value as much as the Olerud’s property increases with the enhanced view.

Higher values equal more taxes / revenue for the city.

But that would never enter the minds of the city government, would it?

Nah.

By: Bumper

Bumper — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:26:06 +0000

“But it is flawed logic to suggest that taking down a tree and taking down a house are the same thing.”

Of course it is, but it’s damned good sarcasm.

By: Frank

Frank — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:19:25 +0000

Outrageous tale and outrageous greed. 4 million is a given – ‘but it could be 4.2’.

According to BaseballReference.com, John Olerud earned about 60 million dollars in his 16 year baseball career as a player. Sure it couldn’t hurt to have an extra quarter mil…

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:17:16 +0000

Aloysious A Gruntpuddock and asdasdf:

I don’t have an opinion on this case. (Based on what I know, I’m probably with everyone here.) But it is flawed logic to suggest that taking down a tree and taking down a house are the same thing.

By: asdasdf

asdasdf — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:52:59 +0000

By the way, the Seattle Times and some of the quoted city council members incorrectly suggest that the ordinance itself was drafted so as to require this result. This is false, the result was not required by the ordinance. Chapter 17.38 of the Clyde Hill Municipal Code, at http://www.mrsc.org/wa/clydehill/index_dtsearch.html , allows for a tree to be cut down only if the view “unreasonably obstructs the view” of a neighbor. 17.38.025 (Preservation of Views). The phrase “unreasonably obstructed” is repeated numerous times throughout the ordinance. (e.g. 17.38.050).

In determining whether a view is unreasonably obstructed the board “may consider several factors, which include but are not limited to the following“. 17.38.050(B)(2).

This is followed by a list of 7 factors.

The city council apparently erred by reading out the “not limited” language in the ordinance: the council only considered the seven factors in the ordinance. Had the council read the ordinance correctly, it would have considered other factors, the main one being the relative ages of the tree and the new house. More particularly, the council should have considered the fact that Olerud built his house on a vacant lot knowing full well the 50-year old tree was there.

The ordinance does not of course state that this consideration would be determinative. But most people seem to think it would be: the indignation about the result is that the council appeared to ignore the circumstances surrounding Olerud’s building a house and then immediately complaining about its view.

By: Robert

Robert — Sun, 25 Nov 2012 19:59:12 +0000

The Canadian mom who wants to ban oak trees has some great quotes like “I’m not a crazy mom.”

Doctors quoted in the article mention that they’ve never heard of a person having Anaphylaxis Shock because of acorns, but that doesn’t stop this mom from wanting to rid Nature of all its Nuts. Too bad she doesn’t own a mirror.

By: Robert

Robert — Sun, 25 Nov 2012 19:42:27 +0000

Wow! What a great precedent! Now I can try to force my neighbors to cut down their tree that casts a shadow on my solar panels!

By: boblipton

boblipton — Sun, 25 Nov 2012 15:03:42 +0000

Well, Marco, in this country, money is green.

Bob

By: marco73

marco73 — Sun, 25 Nov 2012 14:54:44 +0000

Oh, who the hell are we trying to kid here? Rich guy gets what he wants.
He offered the Brady’s (owners of the trees) an amount of money that wasn’t enough for them to remove the trees on their own. So to save some money, he then took then to a local kangaroo zoning board, who voted to force the owners to remove the trees.
And this is in Seattle, that bastion of greenie tree-huggers. I guess the locals have shown their true colors, the color of money.

By: wfjag

wfjag — Sun, 25 Nov 2012 10:40:15 +0000

Where’s the Lorax when he’s actually needed?