The PRU Crew would like to take the opportunity to introduce the members of the Community Health Commission to the members of the Park Ridge O'Hare Commission!
Say 'hello' everybody!
Back on July 20th, at the regular City Council meeting (.pdf), Mayor Schmidtzkrieg reported that he approved the appointments of the members of the O'Hare Airport Commission. Also at that meeting, Mayor Schmidtzkrieg said that he "met with a few residents regarding serious health issues related to living near O’Hare -- and requested Ald. Wsol and the Community Health Commission look into the issue."
At the July 23rd meeting of the Community Health Commission (.pdf), "Ald. Wsol reported that the mayor has requested [the Community Health Commission] to provide expertise to the newly formed City Commission on Airport Noise. Discussion ensued and the Commission decided that they would be willing to send a liaison to meet with them once they are seated to help provide them direction."
The first meeting of the Park Ridge O'Hare Airport Commission was held on September 23rd and hey there, Health Commission liaison -- whoever you are, we missed you!
We would now like to introduce the members of the Park Ridge O'Hare Airport Commission to the members of the Tree Preservation Task Force!
Say 'hello' everybody!
The PRU Crew understands there are those on the Park Ridge O'Hare Airport Commission who are very very very concerned about the air pollution being generated by planes flying over their homes.
The PRU Crew also understands there may be benefits to maintaining, if not pushing to increase, the tree canopy in the City of Park Ridge, because things like air pollution, as well as noise pollution, may be mitigated by a fuller tree canopy.
We recommend the following in-exhaustive list for a quickie primer on the subject of trees and environmental health benefits --
1. -- UrbanForestry.org (.pdf) -- based in the United Kingdom which, as you may know, is England's married name.
We found this statement in the paper very interesting -- "Trees help to reduce noise pollution by absorbing and blocking urban noise. Areas of Hounslow are subjected to high levels of noise on a daily basis. This is caused by aeroplanes taking off and landing at Heathrow Airport, and vehicular traffic using the arterial roads in and out of central London. Some of this background noise could be alleviated with strategically placed tree planting."
2. -- SaveGreenEarth.com (.pdf) -- based in Richmond, VA which, as you may know, has a law that makes it illegal to flip a coin in a restaurant to see who pays for a coffee.
We found this cite in the paper very interesting and didn't want to leave the Park Ridge Flood Control Task Force feeling left out -- "Research by the USFS shows that in a 1 inch rainstorm over 12 hours, the interception of rain by the canopy of the urban forest in Salt Lake City reduces surface runoff by about 11.3 million gallons, or17%. These values would increase as the canopy increases."
3. -- ColoradoTrees.org hosts an article by David J. Nowak of the Syracuse, NY USDA Forest Service which, as you may know, is one of those sprawling government bureaucracies.
We found the article very interesting in its balance between benefits and potential drawbacks of trees on environmental health.
So now it's time to introduce the members of the Tree Preservation Task Force to the members of the Community Health Commission!
Say 'hello' everybody!
We trust we don't have to explain why the Community Health Commission should take an interest in the potential environmental health benefits offered by trees, right?
As luck would have it, you can all get together this evening to say your hellos in person! The Park Ridge Tree Preservation Task Force meets tonight at City Hall, beginning at 6:00 pm.
October 7, 2009
Introductions All Around!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
PRU, good job and thanks for connecting these dots. The whole relatedness of these issues didn't occur to me until you wrote it out here.
I agree that whatever one group is doing the other groups should be paying attention to it. Everything could have an effect on the other.
Hey, PRU Crew - I haven't sent a mash note to anyone in a while, but this entry deserves one. Thanks for the good work.
Excellent post today. Come on commissioners and task forcers, get it together.
If trees can help stop the flooding then I say plant 5000 of them.
The Tree Preservation Task Force was put together to review the current ordinance and determine if it wants to recommend changes to the current ordinance. The current ordinance does not allow trees to be cut down. Given that, I'm not sure how you can have a stronger ordinance. What would you recommend, or are you simply recommending the ordinance stand as is?
Anonymous 2:19,
That could be maybe a little overboard.
I thought the information about tree canopy and water runoff was interesting too.
Anon at 2:19, trees roots also clog sewers, so we need to be able to maintain the trees we have.
Anon@2:49 --
First, a correction of your comment -- the current ordinance does allow for trees to be cut down in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the ordinance. Perhaps you find those guidelines too restrictive for your own personal interests?
Our post today was to draw people's attention to the potential benefits of maintaining and/or increasing the tree canopy in the City of Park Ridge, as it relates to a myriad of issues some of them matters of pollution and health.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
The guidelines are:
A City permit is required to remove any tree in Park Ridge that has a diameter of 10 inches or greater in trunk diameter (DBH ? diameter at breast height, measured at a height of 4-1/2 feet above the ground). Permits for the removal of trees may be issued by the City Forester under limited conditions, such as for a diseased or dead tree, a tree that constitutes a hazard to persons or property; removal of a tree consistent with good forestry practices, or removal to enhance the health of trees in the immediate vicinity...
My understanding, and experience, has been that they will not issue a tree removal permit unless the tree is dying or diseased.
Yes, I do find those guidelines too restrictive for my own personal reasons; as do other residents. Regardless of my tree, your tree, or anyone elses tree; I get a bit uncomfortable when the city comes into my backyard. Perhaps there are times it's necessary, but I'm not sure this is one of them.
Also, imo, it would seem to just make more sense to have an ordinance that encourages tree preservation, rather than one that forbids tree removal on private property. There is a backlash with these types of ordinances; mainly that many people may be less inclined to plant trees on their property since they will be stuck with them, forever and ever...
Thank you,
There are many of us who believe the benefits of a healthy tree canopy are measurable. And if that means maintaining an ordinance to preserve that, than so be it. Ordinances of any kind may be an inconvienence from time to time, they have no one persons interst in mind, they are intended to be in the interest of the community as a whole. If that means that someone may not be able to cut down a perfectly healthy tree simply bcause they don't like it, because that tree benifits the health, noise, water runoff, and so on for the entire community again so be it.
I'm all in favor of enlarging the tree canopy in Park Ridge. That being said, I'm against the city being able to dictate what I can do with the trees on my property.
I think an appropriate compromise might be to let the city mandate and regulate parkway trees - so long as the city is willing to pay for and maintain them.
I've got less of a problem with the city strictly regulating trees on private property...since I'm a believer that trees serve as a benefit to the entire community...than I've long had with the Appearance Commission.
Talk about dictating...and "interference" with private property rights!
Can I get a flood rebate for planting trees?
Do I forfeit the rebate if I use a backhoe to dig the hole?
Do I get the rebate back if I use rainbarrel water to water the trees?
3:17 pm
You are not stuck with them forever and ever.
When they get to be 9 1/2 inches, you can whack them for firewood and start over!
Trees are a renewable resource. So renew them!
Some people think everything is about them and no rules should apply to them if they want something.
Go move to one of those treeless developments in a place like Gurnee. You zeroes act like some giant dangerous tree sprouted out of your property over night.
Wonderful post, PRU. The health benefits of more green, less gray are manifold and scientific info supporting the value of trees in human health (mental as well as physical; story in Chicago Trib just today!)is as easy to come by as pinecones. No brain surgery needed. The Philistines who don't want anyone interfering with their right to blight should move to a red state where there are no trees and nobody dares mention that we owe each other something when we enjoy the benefits of living in a community.
I love when I here people say "I like trees I just don't want anyone telling me I can't cut down a tree on my own property".
I just don't know what to make of that kind of comment.
Anon@7:24 --
Maybe we can help you out.
What we feel you may be hearing is a version of, 'My neighbors should have to consider the good of the community, but I don't want to have to return the favor.'
We understand that the tree preservation ordinance is very strict in the guidelines it sets for allowing healthy mature trees to be removed. And we feel there may be a very little room for compromise.
But we also feel the absolute of 'my property/my rights over everything else' mindset is the position idiots take on issues. And we have zero tolerance for people who think entire community laws should be re-written to accomodate their limited personal preferences.
Thank you and well said.
You forgot to add ordinances are good as long as they pertain to public property and not private property. When history has proven that almost all confrentations, incodents or disputes occur on private property at the complaint of thy neighbor.
Past experience has taught me that when dealing with this mindset, compromise is very difficult to reach. The broader issue of how any one ordinance would effect other ordinances is absent from reason because they fail to see beyond their single issue.
The agruement "just because an ordinance would allow us to cut trees on our own property doesn't mean people will just start cutting down trees willy-nilly" is not being very conciencious. If you open a door people will walk through it. Maybe not enough to jepordize the citys tree canopy, but enough to have an impact on a several properties including those neighbors.
The tree task force does have their work cut out.
Anon at 7:24, what that statement means is that while a person likes trees, in some instances, at some point, their may be a particular tree that's creating a big enough problem that its value is diminished. And no, large trees don't just 'spring up' overnight, but as trees grow, they have been known to create issues and problems. Perhaps we could all try to be rational and reasonable rather than painting the other side as lunatics. There is a middle ground here folks.
Anonymous @ 10:08,
What would you suggest is the "reasonable...middle ground"...?
Well, of course like a lot of other things, what is 'reasonable' can vary from person to person, but there are a number of options...you could have a policy that requires the planting of 2 trees for every one removed, you could make the permit fee so high that you discourage the removal of healthy trees, you could allow homeowners to remove trees from the backyard without a permit, you could allow homeowners to determine what is and is not a nuisance for their own property. There are numerous ways to skin this cat. I reviewed ordinances from about 10 surrounding towns, that have tree preservation ordinances; none of them, (except a certain area of Highland Park), restrict the homeowners right to remove a tree on the homeowners property. They have a variety of ways that they encourage the preservation of existing trees without restricting the residents private property rights to the degree that we currently do. They do have residents running around removing private property trees or 'walking through open doors', and imo, I doubt PR residents would either. If that were true, we'd have a lot less mature trees on private property, cause they would have been cut down prior to the ordinance.
In answer to the poster who suggested residents who think like me move to Gurnee; why didn't you move to WA or MN 10 years ago? Insulting and stupid comment!
Anon@1:06 --
Are there any other ordinances you feel intrude on private property rights?
Anonymous @ 1:06,
I've suddenly gotten the impression you're one of the task force members?...with a personal stake in the policy-outcome of the task force's work...?
PRU - no, there are no other ordinances, at least none that I'm aware of, so therefore, they must not be intruding.
And, no, I do not have a personal stake in the outcome of the Task Force, other than being a resident of PR.
Anon@2:42 --
You don't feel there are any other ordinances that restrict personal property rights?
Are you aware that the City of Park Ridge has zoning and building codes? In each of those sections of the City code there are restrictions on what private property owners can and cannot do on or with their privately owned real estate.
Yes, I'm aware, but you asked me if I thought there were other ordinances that intruded on my property rights. I don't personally find those to be intrusive, and I thought you were asking my opinion. Sorry, I misunderstood the question.
I think we look at this issue differently. When it comes to PP ordinances, shouldn't the first question be "do we need it?" IMO, restraint on the part of the city government is better, unless it is necessary for government to get involved.
Just a quick correction to the post of 1:06, I meant to say, "they DON'T have residents running around removing private property tree..."
Forgive the typo.
Anon@3:37 --
You clearly did misunderstand the question as it was posed to you about ordinances in general, not only your personal property rights.
In light of your most recent answer we'll have to agree that you convey the strong impression of having a personal interest in this particular public policy.
We believe you are among an extremely limited number of residents who look at this issue the way you do.
If you look beyond your own personal interest and property -- take in the view of all the tear downs and new building in the community over just the last few years -- you too may begin to understand why the tree preservation is, in fact, needed as a general public policy.
Unless, of course, you actually do not believe trees are a community asset -- even on private property -- that provide benefits and, therefore, should be protected.
I answered the question as I believed it was posed, not because I have a personal interest any greater than anyone else who lives in PR. I do believe trees are an asset, and I do believe we should have an ordinance. I just believe the one we have now is too strict with respect to pp trees. That's my opinion, you don't have to agree, but please, do not assume you know something about my interests that you clearly don't. You are discrediting my opinion based on an assumption that is incorrect.
I do not believe I'm in a narrow majority with my opinion. So that will be another thing we disagree on. I do see that as a shame, since I usually agree with you.
Consider this your first and final warning.
Lie again and you will be banned from posting comments to our blog.
I am well aware of what your intersts are in this matter.
PRU.ADMIN
I thought there was some intergovernment liason. I know I heard that somewhere very recently.
Why not ask that liason to coordinate these committees.
Robert Ryan is supposed to be the intergovernmental liaison. We know he can't make it to all his meetings now. I seriously doubt he could coordinate any of these groups.
Post a Comment