Fresno is having budget problems like everyone else. But where does that desire to save money cross a line? Normally you would just say where it crosses over to risking people’s lives or health. Trees wouldn’t cross a line, right? No, trees are crossing the line! I never thought that trees and their issues would infuriate me so!
Here in Fresno many areas have this strip between the sidewalk and the curb. The city has planted trees in them and the city maintains the sidewalk and the trees. In an effort to save money City Hall is considering transferring the responsibility of the tree and sidewalk maintenance to the home owner. I understand that the $800,000 the city spends every year is a lot of money, but really?
They don’t want to transfer ownership, just the responsibility. So now I would have to trim these trees and replace the sidewalk they destroy? The city is already many years behind in fixing sidewalks buckling from roots. Oh, they also say that we wouldn’t be allowed to remove a tree without replacing it with one on the city list. Come on.
The areas of town that have this issues are all older homes to begin with. Most of them are in poorer areas too (which is why the city doesn’t bother to fix the sidewalks). Oh, we would also have to have any sidewalk fixes approved too. I guess I wouldn’t have a problem if first the city caught up and would remove any trees we didn’t want. But no, they want to maintain something that they refer to as the “urban jungle”.
I hope this doesn’t pass the city council but if it does. What are they going to do to enforce it? Won’t that end up costing just as much? To then have the staff to run out and check, then to bill for fines, etc. I personally never want to touch those trees or sidewalk because then I would be libel for them. What could that run my homeowner’s insurance or the lawsuit filled against me when someone falls?
Message to Fresno City Hall: Look somewhere else! I am sure that some of us could come down there and fine a few more frivolous things to cut!
(HT: Fresno Bee)
Wait, legally speaking, you can not “create” a contract where none existed. They can not force those who already own those homes to care for a property that is not thiers to begin with. They cant just force people to take over the care, unless it was somehow in the orginal sale of the home or part of a homeowners’ association contract. That would be like them trying to force a homeowner to take care of the street in front of their home, or the sewer lines. I dont see how they can legally do that. Of course, threatening a good court case might be enough to scare them off from doing it.
We are the government and we are here to help you! Good luck!
This kind of reminds me of when Porterville wanted to put sidewalks on certain neighborhood street corners… one of which my mom lives on. Not only did they not ask her, they took a big chunk out of her front yard to put this sidewalk, then made HER pay for it!!
I think it needs to be all or nothing. Either the trees belong with the landowner and are there to do what they choose, or they are the city’s not half and half. Crazy people.
Mrs. Dani, they say that the law has always been that we have to maintain them but the City has been doing us the favor of doing it.
Nerdmom;
You and I both know what they say means nothing ;~) If the law really said that (and I would go to the library and check) then I suppose they have the ability to do it but there is another problem I see coming. Trees are going to start “disapearing” from the sidewalks. They can threaten legal action but they have to CATCH the person in the act and I bet the police will say they have far better things to do than look for tree murderers.