Response to "tree hugger" post
I received the following letter last week from Anthony Rubino. Mr. Rubino also included the reports from Lisa Hammer, the Arborist, to support his side:
Interesting twist on your “Tree Hugger” post. You call it a “mighty Oak” and Miami Herald’s David Smiley calls it a “scraggly oak.” You also call me a “selfish developer.” Why would you say I was selfish? I live in this community just like you do and I have been more than willing to plant 8 new 16 feet Oak trees to benefit our community if this tree were removed.
Maybe you should quote Lisa Hammer, the Arborist (i.e. tree expert), where she stated, “I remain convinced that tree removal and mitigation by the current owner is in the best interest of the community, as it will prevent the new owners from bearing the cost of imminent tree removal, and provide for mitigation which might otherwise be waived if the tree is removed after it dies.” (emphasis added) Lastly, it might be fair to note that in the expert’s observations she noted that, “the stress and decline [to the tree] and not related to construction damage.”
Interesting twist on your “Tree Hugger” post. You call it a “mighty Oak” and Miami Herald’s David Smiley calls it a “scraggly oak.” You also call me a “selfish developer.” Why would you say I was selfish? I live in this community just like you do and I have been more than willing to plant 8 new 16 feet Oak trees to benefit our community if this tree were removed.
Maybe you should quote Lisa Hammer, the Arborist (i.e. tree expert), where she stated, “I remain convinced that tree removal and mitigation by the current owner is in the best interest of the community, as it will prevent the new owners from bearing the cost of imminent tree removal, and provide for mitigation which might otherwise be waived if the tree is removed after it dies.” (emphasis added) Lastly, it might be fair to note that in the expert’s observations she noted that, “the stress and decline [to the tree] and not related to construction damage.”
posted by Tom Falco at 7:53 AM
YOU MAY NOT LIFT THE PHOTOS & TEXT. IT'S COPYRIGHTED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. YOU CAN HOWEVER SHARE A STORY ON SOCIAL MEDIA BY USING THE LINKS HERE.
For linking to this one story, just click on the time it was posted & just this story will open for sharing - only through social media. Not copying and pasting.
30 Comments:
You were selfish to assume it was okay to not plan around the assets of the property to begin with. Yours and all the other generic duplex/mcmansions drag the creative character of this village down. You think in terms of money - not people, not nature, not community.
That is why we think you are selfish.
Mr. Rubino, the tree was there before you built. Why did you not plan around it?
To be fair to Mr. Rubino, it looks like he HAS built around the tree. You can plainly see the completed duplex behind the tree.
I think there's a bit in the article that's causing some confusion:
...the tree has prevented him from laying a driveway and sidewalk, wants to raze the oak, located on the public right-of-way.
Having spent summers as a landscape gardener to pay for school, I have some experience with this kind of thing. IF the tree has to come down, you need to remove the tree AND ITS ROOTS before you install pavement in the area, otherwise you'd damage the pavement removing them later.
Not having visited the site, I can only go by the picture, but it looks like there is room to put a driveway on either one side or the other, and maybe both. It's not the tree per se that's holding up completion, but the disposition of the tree.
Lisa Hammer is a legitimate expert, and her comments should not have been treated so dismissively in the article. She formerly served Miami-Dade County as an Agricultural Extension Agent and coordinator of their Master Gardener program. She is a certified member of ACSA. If she said the tree needs to come down, it does.
A google search on '"lisa hammer" arborist' will give you plenty of background.
To me, 8 new oak trees sound like a benefit to the community.
And yes, many duplexes and McMansions are very unattractive. No argument there.
But the homes are built because the City of Miami building code allows it, not because of anybody's greed. The City cannot govern our neighborhood and it can barely govern itself. The Grove will forever be subjected to the mass bureacracy.
Good exchgange of ideas brought to us by the Grapevine. Keep up the good work.
It would take 40 years for the 8 new oak trees (diameter at breast height of four inches- which is hwat mitigation trees are) to grow in height and canopy. When will peole understand that trees are not furniture that can be moved around and / or replaced for convenience?
I live in a duplex with a large oak tree tree just inside the gate that was saved by the developer by putting the car gate on the side of the lot opposite the garage location. Yes, we have to turn our car to get into the garage, but it's possible and we love the tree. They should build the sidewalk around the tree and change the gates to accomodate the tree. Our builder was smart and put that in his plans back in 1999, when it was easier for developers to get away with things. Trees add to the value of homes. They are why people prefer the Grove over the treeless neighborhoods where the houses cost half as much. Apparently this developer was either very stupid or very arrogant. Either way, the tree should stay.
People seem to have lost sight of the fact that property owners have a presumptive right to get the best use from their investment. And the problem that people like Ms. Dones are creating is that, if every tree on your property becomes the city's business, what incentive does one have to plant trees?
Such stringent regulations on property owners is the equivalent of a tax that is unequally distribute and enforced.
Let's blame the City of Miami Bldg Dept for not checking the plans closely enough to foresee this problem. Therein lies the problem.
I say do everything humanly and humanely possible to heal and save the tree. If a driveway isn't in the design, so be it. Big deal. Many Grove homes do not have driveways. Just take notice of the many cars parked city style on the street in front of the house.
And, why not plant the 8 new oak trees in good conscience; seems like common sense. No chance Mr. Rubino could ever be called greedy if he extended that!
I love it when people here propose spending other people's money. Tinaji, have you priced the cost of purchasing and planting a 16-ft. oak in the Grove?
Btw, my question from the previous post still hasn't been answered: How many trees were cleared to make way for the condominium that Liliana Dones lives in?
Swlip, people just like to complain about anything tree related in the Grove. Its probably a #1 priority, which is pretty sad. I think Mr. Rubino's retort put everyone in their place. You got served.
Let's blame the City of Miami Bldg Dept for not checking the plans closely enough to foresee this problem. Therein lies the problem.
It's my understanding from reading the Herald article that the tree was not included in the plans submitted to the city. I suspect that goes a long way towards explaining the decision of the HEP Board.
Had swlip paid attention to the facts of the case rather than leaping at the opportunity to take another whack at Liliana Dones, he/she might have noticed that the tree in question is on the public right of way, not the owner's property. As such, the public (as owner) would indeed seem to have some say in the matter.
swlip said...
"I love it when people here propose spending other people's money. Tinaji, have you priced the cost of purchasing and planting a 16-ft. oak in the Grove?"
In response;
I do not know the dollar amount of purchasing and planting a 16' oak in the Grove. However, I've come to notice that developer's tend to have deep pockets when it comes to a cause they deem personally worthy. The question is, are trees worthy? To me they are priceless, and should never be cut down under any concocted man-made circumstance. I truly admire the architects that design in consideration of the building site. We even have a few renowned ones right here in the Grove.
BTW, thanks for noticing, I do spend other people's money with a more cavalier spirit than mine own!
careful, swlip's a lawyer
tinaji said - "The question is, are trees worthy? To me they are priceless, and should never be cut down under any concocted man-made circumstance."
According to cl jahn above, Lisa Hammer sounds like a very respected arborist who has said the tree should be removed. The reason to remove the tree hardly sounds concocted to me.
Did you read the quote from her report that said, “I remain convinced that tree removal and mitigation by the current owner is in the best interest of the community, as it will prevent the new owners from bearing the cost of imminent tree removal, and provide for mitigation which might otherwise be waived if the tree is removed after it dies.”
What more could you want? Does any person here think that they know more than an arborist who has extensive training in the health of trees?
Lisa Hammer is respected arborist, but remember, she is also a paid consultant to the guy who wants to remove the tree. It is interesting that she was absent at the HEP Board hearing. It is also interesting that nowhere on her report, which has been circulated about, does she actually say the tree is about to die or that it poses any danger whatsoever. Yeah, the tree could die--- in 10 years, and so could your elderly relatives. But would you kill them now because they are in the way?
This tree has survived Katrina and Wilma and even Andrew. In her carefully worded report, Ms. Hammer says that "the stress and decline are not related to construction damage," yet Code Enforcement cited the owner for not taking the proper precautions to ensure the tree's safety during construction- which is evident in the photos Public Works took. It is only now that the owner was foreced to put a fence around the tree to prevent further damage from Bobcats and debris.
Ms. Hammer's statement, “I remain convinced that tree removal and mitigation by the current owner is in the best interest of the community, as it will prevent the new owners from bearing the cost of imminent tree removal, and provide for mitigation which might otherwise be waived if the tree is removed after it dies,” does not take into consideration that
1- "after it dies," is not next month or next year, but maybe 15 years from now
2 - "the new owners" would not "bear the cost" of anything-- this tree is in the public swale- and it is therefore the responsibility of the City's Public Works Department, which very correctly determined, after considerable review, that the tree was indeed worth keeping.
Frankly, I can't take "anonymous" very seriously in his critiques of Ms. Hammer.
First; who the heck are you? At least have the guts to adopt a pen name so we can make sense of all these replies. Posting with NO identity give you NO credibility.
Second, you claim the report is "widely available," but didn't tell anyone how we could view it.
Third, either Ms. Hammer can be trusted, or not. I believe that her record is far more reliable than some comments made by a completely anonymous party; SHE has credibility, and "anonymous" lacks it entirely.
Fourth, the tree could last 10 or 15 years. And I could poop out gold ingots on days ending in "y." But if Hammer, a board-certified arborist with an outstanding reputation says that the tree should come down, then the tree living on for a decade is about as likely as people lining up by my crapper to haul away my leavings.
Finally, "anonymous" is completely wrong about costs to the owners. Yes, the city would have to pay to remove the TREE. But damage done to the driveway would be the property owner's responsibility, and would entail more costs than the simple removal of the tree.
Me, I will take the word of someone who signs their name to a report over someone who can't be bothered to own up to their comments, particularly when those comments turn out to be deeply flawed.
tinaji:
I do not know the dollar amount of purchasing and planting a 16' oak in the Grove.
At least $1,500 each. Factor in the usual Miami SNAFU factor, and I would put it more at about $1,800.
However, I've come to notice that developer's tend to have deep pockets when it comes to a cause they deem personally worthy.
Don't be silly. Developers are in business to make money, just like everybody else. The guy offered to plant 8 x 16-foot oaks in mitigation, so one can assume that the $12k in cost was what he estimated to be the transactional value to his business. How generous is he supposed to be when the community prevents him from making optimal use of his property?
Speaking of trees on public rights of way, I have a situation that illustrates the absurdity of the current law. Several years ago, completely on a lark, I planted a poinciana sapling on the swale in front of our house. For a long time, it looked like it was dead -- just a stick in the ground. But then it started growing, and now it threatens to overwhelm the powerlines, and in a few years it will likely be a hurricane risk to my house (should I have thought of this before planting the sapling -- well, duh! -- but I also didn't contemplate the possibility that that sapling would become the business of the entire city).
Naturally, I would rather replace it with something else, like a sturdy oak that I would plant in my yard rather than on the swale.
But will it be worth the hassle to me and mine? Probably not.
Ms. Dones once said at a neighborhood association meeting: "Trees are like our pets, our children...." My thought was and still is that neither my pets nor my children have ever been dangerously leaning against my house after a hurricane.
Right on, swlip. Yet another opportunity to take a gratuitous whack at Ms. Dones.
CL JAHN questioned whether or not the report from Lisa Hammer was widely available.
To this I will respond:
After I wrote Tom Falco, the owner/maintainer of this blog, in response to his accusation of me being a 'selfish developer', he wrote me back and asked me if he could publish my response to him. I told him that he could publish it IF he agreed to use the entire letter AND if he agreed to post Lisa Hammer's reports.
He then promised to do so in a return email sent to me on Monday where he said, "Send me a link to both and I'll publish them. They have to be part of a website or something for me to link to them."
I sent him the following link (below) on Monday and have asked him DAILY via email why he never published the link. He has not responded to me since Monday.
If you want to see the reports they can be found at:
http://lisahammerreports.googlepages.com/home
I wasn't ignoring you, I never received your emails. I did wait for them and then decided to post your letter in your defense without the link to Lisa's letter. I had no reason to not post the link, which I honestly wanted to do from the start.
Lisa Hammer is respected arborist, but remember, she is also a paid consultant to the guy who wants to remove the tree.
Yeah, this is a huge conspiracy... Im sure there is a whole network of shady arborists (no pun intended) that are willing to make stuff up in a report for the right price. Youre really on to something here. We should call in the Feds for a full investigation!
Fourth, the tree could last 10 or 15 years. And I could poop out gold ingots on days ending in "y." But if Hammer, a board-certified arborist with an outstanding reputation says that the tree should come down, then the tree living on for a decade is about as likely as people lining up by my crapper to haul away my leavings.
CJ Jahn - any time you can successfully integrate poop or farting into an argument, youve got my vote. Plain and simple. For example, I dont know if I could vote for Hillary but if she were at a campaign rally and were to bend over and fart into a megaphone, she'd definitely get my vote.
Simple fact of the matter is that you people need to get over it already. All you do is bitch and moan about how noisy the Grove is, late night clubs, and trees. Sounds like you should be living out in the middle of the woods, not in a MAJOR CITY like Miami.
Mr. Rubino-
Thanks for the link. As I suspected, the totality does support your position. The pictures of the tree before the project are particularly compelling. That's a sick looking oak.
Blind-Mind;
Glad you enjoyed it!
I'm as pro-environment as anyone can be. I walk or ride my bicycle to work, I bring my own shopping bag. And I'm all for limiting developmment.
But the fact is, Rubino isn't part of the problem, at least in this case. He built a house in an urban environment, and he had planned to keep the tree and found that he couldn't.
Go to the link he provided to Ms. Hammer's website, and read the reports, and look at the pictures.
And then you should consider saying "Hey, Anthony; sorry about that. I got carried away."
Most often, good old fashioned Common Sense easily trumps all the specialists and professionals (and even developers in this case) all enthusiastically agreeing with one another.
And while I don't doubt or challenge the conclusion of the arborist, I certainly don't agree with a tree's premature death simply because it's sick and is going to die anyway! This kind of thinking is insidious at best, even if it is "just a tree". Healing vs. destruction – I'm sure the arborist could administer some big pharma drugs to prolong the life of the tree. Oh, but that's not in the best interest of the parties directly involved.
I love the banter, especially when it's a worthwhile cause... an age old oak tree or a driveway? Hmmmm?
If the purpose of removing the tree, which is on the public right of way, is to prevent the next owner from having to pay this expense when the tree dies, why doesn't the city just remove it when it dies? I mean, isn't the city supposed to take care of trees on the public right of way, anyway?
I'm sure the arborist could administer some big pharma drugs to prolong the life of the tree.
What are you on? Angel Dust? That takes the cake for "Most Absurd Statement" in this post.
Since you love this tree so much, perhaps youre willing to pay for any damages it causes to the residence? That or maybe you could chain yourself to it before they take it down. That would be hilarious!
tinaji:
If it were just a matter of simply bing about a sick tree, I'd agree with you.
BUT because of the location, there's more to it than simply "it's sick so kill it." It's a matter of "it's dropping large branches on the SIDEWALK, and it's roots are not deep enough to prevent it from BLOWING OVER, and when it does blow over it will take out the SIDEWALK and probably the driveway."
That's why the tree has to come down, not just "it's sick."
I do love trees and have the utmost regard for nature. I guess I wear that on my sleeve. I also have a healthy sense of humour where apparently blind mind (the moniker says it all) couldn't tell the difference between sarcasm and a tree limb if it smacked him upside the head.
I mean really - what self-respecting tree hugger would promote the use of pharmaceuticals!
Post a Comment
<< Home