On the other hand, there’s “EZ-Kuts Tree Kare”, which consists of one white guy who drives the truck. He picks up Manuel and Jorge at the nearest Home Depot, drops them at your place, hands them chainsaws, and tells them “I’ll be back in dose hours, el no a you siesta”. That’s how you get a tree that looks like a phone pole with warts. But hey, he had the biggest flashiest ad in the phone book, and he promised that he had the cheapest rates in town, and they just said PRUNE the tree, not prune it GOOD, if they want it good they can pay for it themselves.

And, actually, that last isn’t a bad idea. I’d be okay with telling homeowners “it’s your tree, do what you want”. Unfortunately the city can’t seem to let itself give up that little bit of control, which is typical of local municipal governments. If they had the chance they’d legislate how long your hair could be.

I live 40 miles south of it, and it’s been YEARS since I’ve set foot in it.

I feel much safer in Moscow and Sao Palo.

This is a great program and idea. It is a win for the city because they are no longer in the tree pruning business and without any any agreement with home owners, got to dump that maintenance on the home owners.

It is a win for the city because of all the regulations on how the trees have to be trimmed, the city will collect more in business taxes from the oodles of new tree trimming companies that will pop up to handle the demand.

It is a win for the city because the tree trimming companies will need to hire people, thus putting more people to work which means more taxes collected.

It is a win for the tree trimming companies as they get more work.

So it is a win for everyone!

(Although I keep thinking that someone is going to have to pay for all this and therefore be a loser in this deal, but I can’t figure who that would be. (sarcasm off) )

Doesn’t this exist already under the name “property tax”?

The city had specified which species of trees could be planted, required a specified number, and absolutely blew it by picking (in our area) varieties with spreading surface roots that absolutely destroyed the sidewalks and curbs. They shifted from repairing both in the early 90’s to dumping it on the homeowner.

And if one of the trees died, you had to replace it, again with a variety acceptable to the bureaucracy. Nothing new here. But it’s another abuse of power.

I learned this expensively in trying to maintain a corner lot on Capitol Hill that was graced with two American Elms and a third on the tree belt. The one on the belt finally succumbed to Dutch Elm Blight and the city did take it down at city expense. Had it fallen, it would have obstructed the street.

The ones in the yard, though, were mine to care for, but not mine to take down or sell. So was the grass to be cut, the hedges trimmed. And when a sport mulberry tree destroyed a retaining wall at the back of the city/my property, replacing the wall was at my expense. The midnight disappearance of that mulberry tree somehow just happened. Gnomes, perhaps.