December 14, 2010 at 6:00 pm in INFORUM
There is some half-serious sentiment in North Dakota that cutting down a live tree should be a hanging offense because there are so few trees in the state. Continue Reading
Tags: Editorials, Fargo trees, Opinion, preservation, tree ordinance 14 Comments »
“(Fargo)…home to the state’s largest urban forest…” Only because people stick their xmas trees in the snow berm until April.
Like or Dislike: 0 0
Our ND state tree is the telephone pole. Given the choice between makig another $5 in sugar beets vs. keeping a few living pieces of wood? Well just look at the horizon.
Yayyyyy…. Just what we need. Another law telling us what we can and can’t do with our own land!!!
Rick, when people can not use common sense and go off half cocked, then laws need to be passed. No neighborhood wants or needs ugly pieces of land around it. Maybe all that is needed is the statement that “preference will be given to designs that incorporate the local landscape in their designs”.
Or it can be put in the masterplan as designated for city parkland until a developer comes up with sufficient foresight and planning to talk the commission into changing the zoning. They don’t need to pass blanket ordinances to do this, and a Qualified City Planner would do this as part of his initial planning when the city annexes the land.
LOL, “City of Tree’s”, like its the “City Of Parks”.. It actually says that on the billboards as you enter Fargo! All the parks are either unusable, and undermaintained flood plain or designed private back yard playgrounds for rich people… Lookit Ed Clapp Park! You have to walk almost a mile to get in if you don’t own one of the houses bordering it.
The City Commission is CLUELESS! They continue to plant Ash Tree’s when there is a bug quickly coming that will wipe them out like Dutch Elm wiped out the Elm tree’s.
I can understand the idea of preserving shelter belt tree’s, but they are not the best tree’s for an urban forest, and certain trees can be grown in fast… to be replaced by slower growing tree’s later. If they had a clue, they would, instead of prohibiting developers to build, design the neighborhoods in advance. They could then plant tree’s in the appropriate location even before construction so they have more mature tree’s when they DO develop a neighborhood… in the right places. There are tree’s that can reach 30′ in under 5 years.
We need a properly trained City Planner POST HASTE, the City Commission is entirely clueless.
Too little too late. All remaining stands of trees within a 10 mile area are now annexed. The last straws of hypocrisy was the new gas station on 52nd Ave South that wiped out an entire grove of gorgeous trees that provided a significant amount of natural aesthetic wildlife habitat, and a homey feeling. Combine that with a non existant vision for any park on the western boundary of the city along the Sheyenne River, and preserving the last remaining trees along the river, and we can see that this policy is a complete sham.
Worthless indeed. As is the City Commission.
I’m curious if they ever have the guts to read and respond directly to these comments. They have to see them. Are they too arrogant to take time to address citizen grievances on a forum like this for all to read?
I have to say, Reality, I post on another blog… Corner Bar, that Linda Coates used to respond to when she was the planning commissioner. Her usual response, in a nutshell, is that she had to allow the developers to do what they wanted. Her excuse for the 45th street fiasco was that they planned that street for the traffic it was getting at that time, and it was unpredictable that area would grow to that size and traffic flow.
I had a lot of respect for her because she listened and responded. I voted for her, and wish she hadn’t been voted out of office, she did care for her community.
Taking out the trees along 52nd Ave & 25th was practically criminal and surely helped to create the uproar. I was totally shocked when I saw that they were tearing down the trees last summer — unbelieveable. The trees surely would have provided a buffer for the business that is in a partial residential area and made it less a stark, cold, commercial building.
A row of trees on the North & West side of the new WalMart parking lot would be a welcome addition. At least WalMart planted little stick trees in their parking lot — none down the road at 25th.
SDo, the underwhelming question is, why isn’t this in the cities masterplan? Why doesn’t the city require advance sufficient planting? Why are they obsessing over preserving tree’s that are innapropriate for the space, but don’t care if the streets have appropriate plantings to protect the community? Enquiring minds want to know.
Need I repeat myself? A qualified City Planner would have all these questions answered in his masterplan. Why doesn’t the City Commissions Planning Commissioner have this in place?
Enquiring minds want to know… Why don’t we have a qualified City Planner?
I happened to drive by the site when they were destroying those trees earlier this year. And as I drove listening to KFGO on my car radio, the commercial that featured the Don’s Car Wash grandkids was on, touting how environmentally friendly that their Grandpa’s car wash is. Priceless!
Those trees would have gone a long ways in reducing the emissions from all the cars that will be visiting the site. I am not a “green” person, but I do not see any sense in tearing down trees to build a concrete jungle. Is there anybody who does not know that concrete jungles have the worst quaility of air?? That site will be windy, hot, dusty, smelly, and lacking in natural shade.
I agree, SL, but in reality, its easy to plant a “Green” environment that will grow quickly to meet those needs. It just takes a little foresight and knowledge on what to plant to meet those needs. To prohibit construction because a tree (or shelter belt) is close to the end of its lifespan is shortsighted and bad policy.
It would be better policy to plant, when we annex the land, groves of trees that will predictably be boulevard trees along the main thoroughfares. Willows and poplars both put on better than 6′ a year. If one alternates them with tall slow growing shade tree’s so when the willows die, we would be 20+ years ahead in having mature tree’s on the land.
We are ignoring though, a simple fact… 52nd str. shouldn’t have been developed yet, and those tree’s were removed needlessly because of urban sprawl. It becomes painfully clear when those are the only tree’s in the region, and we still target them for premature destruction how wrong it all is. If we had slowly developed out to that point, there would be many mature tree’s growing betwixt and nobody would have even thought twice about them.
Click here to cancel reply.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
To start connecting please log in first.
Topics is proudly provided by the Forum Communications Company