May 09, 2006
Only in Seattle
From the April newsletter of the Magnolia - Queen Anne District Council:
Tree Removal
City Council member Conlin attended a meeting of the Magnolia – Queen Anne District Council and reviewed some of his activities. Included in the list was his support of a proposal to restrict the removal of trees from private property. Land owners wanting to remove a tree, whether it was destructive to house foundations, sewers, or just for landscaping changes, would be required to have a city inspection, pay fees of course, and obtain a permit before taking any action. Council member Conlin noted that the purpose was to reforest the city. He said that the city had lost a significant amount of its tree cover since 1910, which he thought was the benchmark. Since much of the city was undeveloped forest and portions were being logged at that time, it isn’t clear how the city would get back to that benchmark.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 09, 2006
08:30 AM | Email This
1. 1910 seems to be around right for most of these loonies. Maybe they should just eliminate all surface roads and newer construction in Seattle and return to the Seattle Underground. Oops, that would eliminate Starbucks, wouldn't it? I guess that wouldn't work.
2. While they are at it, they should also be subject to the 100 foot setback from any trickle of water which might have been a stream--starting with apartments.
And lets relocate some nuisance bears and cougars to the reforestation project in Seattle.
These people do know that over half the state of Washington and more than a third of King County is already public land, right?
3. Several cities in Washington have similar codes and/or ordinances on trees. Some cities (like Lacey) even have an official forester position. Applications and fees, for starters. Mitigation if they give you their blessing and you can remove a tree or trees.
And the best part? Narc neighbors who've got nothing better to do but call the city if they don't like what you're doing with your property. (no. didn't happen to me.)
4. City Council member Conlin also demanded we tear down all houses, live in caves, and use beaver pelts as currency.
5. The city of Seattle loves suburban sprawl. The policies of the city, spearheaded by lead pro-suburban sprawl advocate Peter Steinbrueck, are pushing growth that would normally settle in Seattle outwards. From extorting suppliers of urban housing to these goofy tree policies, Seattle is forcing the real forests in the semi rural periphery to be cut down instead of growth occuring in the developed, deforested core.
6. Personally, I am all in favor of the CAO and believe it should be applied equally to ALL areas of King County. So every property owner in the city should be allowed to choose which 66% of their lot will be cleared of ALL structures and replanted with trees.
Wouldn't the city be a much nicer place to visit then?
7. You can't make this stuff up. These wackos are entertaining. I would not be at all surprised if they started bulldozing houses to plant trees. That's really what they want.
The irony is that although there was forest all over the Seattle area before it was populated, sum total there are far more trees and greenery in the US now than there ever was when the country began in the late 1700s.
But it's OK when liberal Seattle judges cut down trees, because they can just blame their gardners.
8. Properties rights! we don't need no stinkin' property rights! We're Seattle! We're smarter than you idiots who work everyday and pay a mortgage. If we tell you what and when to drive, where and when to take transit, and what and how many trees you'll have on your land....
YOU ARE GOING TO LIKE IT!!
Understand!
It frees you from the slavery of making all those mundane decisions, after all who better knows what trees you should have?
You?
Or a committee of bureaucrats, arborists, and central committee members.
Just leave living life to the experts, you possibly can not make the best decisions for yourself.
Does anyone really doubt anymore that the libs intend to confiscate all property? What more will you need to convince you? Ron Sims in an Red Guard uniform hauling Grandma off her home of 60 years for trimming a rose bush?
Wake up and smell the communists! They are closer than you think.
9. Does Conlon also want to retreat to
a) no voting for women?
b) prop ownership in many areas blocked jews, blacks, etc.
c) no min wage,
d) immigrants often chased out of town...
so what is it left wing Rick?
10. I agree with Conlin wholeheartedly that we should recover the canopy of 1910, with one proviso.
For each tree we replace, we plant one liberal in the hole head first (though in some cases like ivan it will be impossible to know which end is which). Either way, no self respecting tree will grow there.
Solves two problems at once.
Lets start with Conlin, he isn't doing anything else important.
Let's plant him at the Columbia Towers.
11. All four of my grand parents were born in the downtown Seattle area from 1901 to 1905. They had told me on many occasions that when they were children there was not a tree to climb within two mile of downtown DUMWAMPS (Seattle’s original name). The trees were long since gone, logged off in the 1860’s to 1890’s. Maybe councilman Conlin should do his history home work before we commit to the “GOOD OLD DAYS” of horse crap in the streets, open sewers and “SKID ROWS" ...well that hasn’t changed... but you know what I mean!!!
12. Aaaahhhhh...Seattle.
A great place to visit, but I wouldn't want to spend there.
13. Conlin is the typical LEFTIST PINEADED LUDDITE!!!
I thought Seattle was an URBAN GROWTH area???
He wants forests in the C ounty and the City!!
KLOWN!!!!!!!!!!!
I'll bet these Arborists love Conlin. More "fees" for them!!
14. Howsyoudoin
I ‘am reminded dat on May 10 06 dat’s 1906, Union Depot (King Street Station) opened. We's not changed all that much councilman CON-lin.
Forgetaboutit
15. Well, they seem to be trying to make up for all their liberal deforestation in Seattle proper by imposing beyond-unreasonable restrictions on those of us who weren't deforesting our properties on the eastside anywhere near what they did in Seattle.
16. Great idea to return to the golden age of 1910.
Let's tax at the 1910 rate.
Hold the Seattle city budget to the 1910 level.
Let's start with returning to the number of city council positions there were then.
Let's roll back the mayor's salary to 1910.
Let's roll-back the city employee complement to 1910.
Let's open up the number of brothels there were in 1910.
Let's open up the number of parking spaces there were in 1910.
Let's limit the number of tree-huggers to what there were in 1910.
Let's limit the number of sociology and philosophy degrees UW awards to the number there were in 1910.
Let's pay 1910 City Light rates. Don't forget the water rates as well as sewer and trash.
WOW! The potential and returns are endless. Thanks council PERSON Colon!!
17. The bumper stickers on the rear window of my F150 pickup read.
EARTH FIRST: We'll log the other planets later.
HUG A LOGGER: You'll never go back to tress.
18. In 1910 there weren't any trees along most streets in Seattle. Look at any picture from then. You could see forever down the streets (except for the telephone poles and their wires). Now it is a "forest" of trunks and limbs and leaves and cracked sidewalks from the roots.
Another City Councilman that doesn't know squat.
19. I have been of the opinion for almost 50 years now that supidity is a virtue in Seattle -- this opinion never fails to be reinforced on a regular basis -- this whole area is 'STUCK ON STUPID' - ala Niew O'leeanns
20. Stef,
This is good reporting and holding politicos accountable. Silly idea for sure.
Stef, I am still curious what YOUR concern is about Darcy when you cannot even vote for her. U do appear to have your knickers in a twist about Darcy. Just curious, not to passionate about it.
BTW I do not know squat about Darcy or that District except Dave Reichart is over there. Why should a Seattle resident or Congressional district give a hoot about that race and NOT the others in the state?
Anyway great work putting spot light on CIty of Seattle silly policies.
Respectfully,
Once At City
21. Ah, the liberal pursuit of the past utopia that never was. I wrote a paper on that very spectacle that so unhinged one of my college English professors that I thought she was going to grind the fillings in her teeth to dust.
22. Once I taught American history to a group of homeschooled teenage boys. I loved teaching 20th century conflict between socialism/constitutionalism.
One day I needed a simple example. I presented an example of a land owner who wanted to plant a small orchard of , say, cherry trees. How were the permits to be obtained, how much should they cost, what inspections should be made of the land.... wetlands etc.
This presented quite a discussion. Eventually they caught on. One side was "Why do we need a permit for this ?" The other side went wild with new and better restrictions... such things as renting a specialized enviornmentally safe planting machine.
This state is in deep trouble. I have liked the Constitution.
23. It's not just Seattle. I live in Bothell, and I can't even wash my car anymore - it's illegal now. Environmentalism has grown into a state sponsored religion. Mother earth first, and to heck with everyone else. Look at the “environmental terrorists”; willing to burn houses down to get their point across.
Yes we have to be responsible with our natural resources, and use them wisely (like managed forests). But now it seems the resources themselves have been elevated above people, so what's the point in having resources?
When do we start worshiping trees? Maybe we should start bulldozing houses and use the rubble for burnt offerings to mother earth?
Wait, I know, wouldn't the environment here be much better if we all just moved to the moon? Then, we could all peer through really powerful telescopes, and admire and enjoy the pristine, untouched beauty of mother earth from 200,000+ miles away.
24. I was going to say what Bob in SeaTac said.
So, here, take a look at old pictures of Seattle, many circa 1910: http://content.lib.washington.edu/seattleweb/index.html
25. BREAKING NEWS - The Supreme Court has made a landmark decision requiring an Act of Congress, enviornmental impact study, permits from the state county and city you reside in, plus the consent of your neighbors if you want to mow your lawn or trim a the hedge.
I'm glad I don't live in Seattle otherwise I would torch the City Council "office" and all the council members homes...and then cut down the trees in their yard.
26. This is a great idea! I think we should also restore Denny Hill to its glory from before 1910:
http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=710
27. For that matter, Harbor Island was artificially constructed in 1909:
http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=3631
28. MB,
I agree with you but think it much better if you instead stick around (we need the sane ones left like you) and
send the enviro-whackos to the moon with a looking glass. Make it pink. Send AlGore to lead them.
29. I am curious if anyone is going to point out to this Conlin a$$hole how much of a dim-witted dolt he is for stepping on his own dick about this issue.
He will doubtless be too clueless to pick up on the joke -- let alone the reality.
Conlin is a liberal twerp that needs to be run over by a bus.
Truth be known . . . he probably has.
30. This has been a budding problem for quite some time. Take Magnolia. One group of screamy meemies got a ban on cutting trees on the west side. One group took action to get the trees cut to restore views. Larry Phillips (yes the same guy who Dean Logan miraculously found his uncounted ballot) wanted 'em cut for his view. Guess which side won?
31. 1910 was the year Conlin's political doctrine was written....by the Wobblies.
What a horse's ass.
32. I don't say this lightly but I believe that Conlin has a very strong authoritarian streak...a 'nanny' if there ever was one...who wants to impose his values on everyone else. And not deeply hed values; If he were living in the deep south he'd be a conservative because it is more convenient.
Behind that smile and his treacly 'sweetness and light' is a very unpleasant political personality who is constantly grasping for power.
(& btw, I'm a liberal.)
33. Conlin is quoted as saying "Since much of the city was undeveloped forest".
My question is What is a DEVELOPED forest?
Maybe developed forest are colony's of where lil people live in big people mailboxes.
34. I used to live near a town in the LA suburbs that had a similar law. And I knew a guy who knew a guy who was, and I kid you not, a tree assassin. He had little vials of tree diseases, and for a fee he would discretely kill the tree of your choice with biological warfare. Then city didn't mind if you removed a dead tree from your property.
I am pretty sure that the tree assassin had a day job, it's not like a full time position. Maybe he can find some more work up here now.
35. Matt S.....
You are very correct. Drive a copper pipe, tube or anything pure copper into the root system of a tree, and you will kill it....It takes awhile, and not sure if works on all species, but your neighbor in LA I am sure had a day job.
36. What happens if we drive a copper pipe, tube or anything pure copper into the root system of a liberal?
I'm quite sincerely for that.
Let's start with Richard Conlin.
37. Why go to all that trouble when a wooden stake will do? ;'}
38. The waste of wood.