Letter: City should care for trees
The situation of who pays the cost of the tree removals in the parkway at Janet Holley’s house on Blake is very disturbing to me. The parkway land is and always has been public property, not owned by the residents nearby.
I maintain the parkway area in front of my house on Blake Avenue because it increases the beauty of my property and the upkeep of the area around my home is very important to me. I also understand, because the parkway is owned by the city, they can come at any time and disturb the work I have done.
I have lived in my home since 1988 and sometime in the ’90s one of the trees in the parkway was removed by the city and replaced with a mountain ash, by the city at no cost to me. That was their policy then, so the comment by Karl Hanlon that the cost of removal of trees in the parkway of Glenwood properties should be the responsibility of the resident and has been “longstanding policy,” does not agree with my experience.
It appears that since that time that policy was changed by the city, and that change should show up somewhere in minutes kept by the council. This change in the city policy creates an unfortunate monetary burden for hard-working city residents of whom Janet Holley is a prime example.
It is obvious to me that the old policy should be reinstated as the parkway property is public, thus the burden for maintaining that area should be the responsibility of the city and not the residents living on their privately owned property nearby. Janet Holley deserves the monetary support of the city for the removal of the parkway trees in dispute.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.