Hacker News Reader

Comment by jackyinger | Hacker News Reader

Seattle does have a concept of “exceptional trees” (a big old tree worth saving) which are protected by law. But it requires involving the city for them to be recognized and documented.

A friend quashed a developers’ plans in West Seattle by getting ahold of the city to come out and look at what he thought was likely an exceptional tree. The city arborist confirmed that it was and noted that several more were as well.

YMMV, but definitely advocate and engage the city ASAP if there’s any sign of development around big trees.

View on HN

My friend says the trees in that situation were definitely exceptional but that the survey maps don’t track tree size or age, just locations and types. So the neighbors had no evidence of the trees being exceptional, except their testimony. The city basically chose not to investigate the practice of cutting trees at an odd hour or the immediately shredding of the trees to destroy the evidence. The issue the neighbors wanted enforced was that it was an environmentally protected area due to the property being on a slope and with a stream next to the slope. That’s what the city had the complete ability to give the builders big fines for, but they chose not to.

What I don't understand about this story is that it takes a ton of work to uproot a tree, and if you don't do that, there would be evidence of exceptional trees in the form of their stumps. Makes me wonder who the builders know.

I love trees. I plant a lot of them.

I noticed one friendly neighbor remark that one of our oldest cedars was a fine specimen and that he wanted to register it.

It got girdled, and I cut it down as soon as possible. I planted three trees.

I don't understand, did you girdle the tree?

You may think that, but I couldn't possibly comment.

I was trying to convey that laws should be carefully written, not to motivate people to do things that keep them inside the law yet are still damaging.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com