When Greens go NIMBY over Street Trees

UPDATE:  See site details and photo below.
First, I love my neighbors - most of the time and as a group.  And as a group you could hardly find a more environmentally concerned bunch - until it comes to planting trees in front of their homes.  (So okay, technically it's NIMFYism or maybe NIMROWism for "Not in my right-of-way".)

The Arborist's Plan

Of course part of the job of the city arborist is to reforestation, so toward that goal he's targeting streets that are bare of street trees, including my own, and planting 'em up.  On the side of the street with power lines he'll be planting 18 'Thunderchild' crabapples, which grow to 15-20' tall and wide in 20 years, then die (they're short-lived).  Their fruit is the size of cherries.  Now for the controversial part: 14 sweet gum trees will be planted on the side of the street with no power lines.  They'll eventually be really, really tall (80+ feet).

 

The Reaction

That news led to a spirited discussion on our Yahoo group, including:

• "While I like trees as much as the next person, I don't think more trees is always better."
• Objections to shade trees altogether ("We have SO little sun!")
• "Sweetgums drop the spiky balls that are lethal to bare feet"
• Concerns that with more trees, cars won't see kids playing.

Turns out there are plenty of unconflicted treehuggers on the street, but they're expressing their tree enthusiasm in person, not stirring the pot on the old listserv.  Smart neighbors.

The greater good at stake here includes a slew of benefits, starting with the cooling effect that trees have on our homes.  And the land to be planted on is city-owned (the right-of-way).  Nonetheless, the city is allowing people to opt out and decline to have trees planted in front of their homes.

A Confession

As surprised as I was by the number of anti-tree emails, I've gotta say I'd feel pretty conflicted myself if monumental trees were slated for MY right-of-way.  (It's true - we have SO little sun!)  But because my right-of-way is already full to bursting with plants, including two small trees, I'm exempt.  Whew.

Should Homeowners be allowed to Opt Out?

The scuttlebutt is that while homeowners now have the option to decline new trees, the city may soon eliminate that option.  It's public land, after all, and trees benefit us all (though gardeners, admittedly less so).  But readers, what do YOU think?  When your Environmentalist Self battles your Gardener Self and your Personal Freedom Self, who wins?

More about the Site

Here's a photo of the right-of-way that includes my own, filled with perennials and Yoshino cherries.  It's only 43 inches wide, and on the other side - with power lines and scheduled to get crabapples - it's only 41 inches.  The houses average 25-30 feet from the sidewalk and the back yards are blessed with many mature trees.  So shady back yards are common in this heavily treed old neighborhood.

Sweetgum photo credit.  

Comments

[Joseph Tychonievich]

Seems rather than saying "Sweet gums or nothing" they should give people a choice of several trees. Planting a monoculture of just one species is always a bad idea (as the emerald ash borer is teaching ash-lined streets here in Michigan) and different people want different things -- I'd compromise, letting the people who don't want lots more shade get small trees, and the rest get those gorgeous sweet gums.

[Matt]

I'm inclined to let the homeowners modify the greenspace around them as they like. What benefits does the city say these trees will provide? I can't think of any benefits that are universal...

[trey]

Sweet Gums? Liquidamber? What about those spiny seed balls that drop? That is a nuisance. Liquidamber sales are hard to make anymore since people do complain about the seed balls. Seems like a weird choice.

Sacramento has lots of huge trees that shade the streets and make life bearable during the hot summer. Yet, if you asked anyone now if planting those same trees was a good idea you would get people who would complain about the leaf drop, sidewalks lifting, etc.

Just like the people with the solar panels who sued the neighbors over their tall redwoods that we're shading the panels, there are so many conflicting needs and wants.

Don't have an answer for you but it makes me glad I live in the country where the neighbors are far enough away we can plant any tree we want.

[LindaCO]

Hmm. I have a large tree lawn that I hated to waste water on, so I covered it with mulch (I know, I know - it could be garden space :-)). I wouldn't have done that, though, if I didn't have two very nice, climate-appropriate Serviceberries already there when I bought the place. I love those tree - so do the Robins come berry time.

FWIW, my city is one that allows some say in what trees get planted on tree lawns.

['nora]

I'd take sweet gums over those stupid Norway maples -- the gumballs are easily swept up and the autumn foliage is the most beautiful of any tree I know.

That said, I agree monoculture is bad and loss of sun is not really great either. I'm less concerned about the cars-won't-see-kids problem -- I grew up on a tree-lined street and both cars and kids were quite capable of watching out for each other. Giving homeowners a choice of trees, or a "plant one yourself" option, seems the best compromise -- the homeowners get something that fits their needs, the street gets trees.

[Jennifer Tidwell]

I'm not a fan of sweetgums myself. They are invading my property at an alarming rate. Not only do they sucker and drop seeds everywhere, the roots are very close to the surface and are impossible to dig around. They also tend to rot from the top down.

Surely there has to be a better tree?

[Tibs]

How wide is that curb strip that you are planting the crabs in? You say they get 20' wide? This is going to require much maintenance on the part of the city to keep the limbs from encroaching on sidewalks and the streets.

[Christopher C NC]

Liquidambar styraciflua 'Rotondifolia'
is dingleballess and quite a handsome tree.

I would be on the pro street tree side. You can always get your sun in the back yard if you have to have it. That of course depends on the surrounding circumstances.

[frank@nycgarden]

Well do the people who live on the sweetgum side of the street face S, N, E, or W. How wide is the street? What are the setbacks? How tall are the homes? Are there many trees in the back yards?

Its true, gardeners prefer sun, but I've seen some wonderful shade gardens. But if the trees will be really close to the houses, it tends to cause problems. That said, today's owners won't see those problems for many years.

Neighborhoods in NYC with a significant number of mature street trees have long histories of economic stability. Trees come to signify prosperity, and those with the resources to manage the damage (sidewalk uplift, difficult lawn or landscape issues, gutter cleaning, etc, etc) seem to tolerate the side effects of having stately, mature trees.

Of course, there are trees with more open habits that may not be native, like Ginkgo (male). In my mind, however, its really that streets were not designed to accommodate trees or much in the way of planting. I'd rather see a strip of woods in between the back yards of houses or deeper front yards to accommodate medium sized trees. Cramming them in a three foot section between sidewalk and street just doesn't feel right to anyone who cares for plants, trees included.

Cars and kids playing? Can we keep the kids out of it for once? Its the cars, not the trees or kids.

Here's an idea- get your street to commit to a one lane pavement (you have driveways, right?) No street parking. An 8 foot wide street can accommodate delivery trucks and single cars. It will slow cars down, saving kids everyone professes to care so much about, and give more room for trees away from the house, leaving some more sun. Good luck!

[Nell Jean]

Sweetgums love sewer lines. Ask me how I know and why we cut ours down.

[Ginny Stibolt]

We have a lot of sweet gums on our property. Not only do they drop those horrid gumballs and send up endless suckers from their shallow surface roots, their leaves are resinous and stain pavement, decking, and anything else that's under them.

On the other hand, the gumballs are useful for long-lasting wreath material--they never rot. They also have good fall color, even down here in Florida. And of course, a stand of any type of tree cools the area and provides habitat. Plus turf grass does not do well under sweet gums, so maybe these trees will reduce the endless acres of lawn.

[theManicGardener]

After reading through this, I have to say that gumballs sound like an odd choice. And I agree heartily with those who oppose monocultures.

My city (Bozeman, Montana) offers homeowners a choice of ten or fifteen recommended species for boulevards; the city will put in any of these for a nominal fee (about $99, I think) which also covers removing a diseased tree if there is one. If someone wants a tree not on the list, then they're on their own as far as planting costs go.

--Kate

[Hap]

Our city Arborist seems to love Sycamores, which of all the trees you can grow in sidewalk margins in Northern California seems to be a strange choice. Every July and August they all come down with powdery mildew and start defoliating ... it is a moldy mess and I have to wonder if it adds to the cases of asthma. Luckily the sidewalk margin in front of my house is too small to permit one of those disgusting trees and I was able to plant something smaller, evergreen and more appropriate to be under power-lines. My across the street neighbor planted Bambusa oldhami (Giant Timber Bamboo) which looks really amazing as a street tree, all though it has already filled the cut in the concrete and has started to "ooze" over the sidewalk... I wonder when the city will notice....

[Li'l Ned]

I'm for the some-citizen-choice option. Living as I do in the midst of a neighborhood full of mature ponderosa pine trees (which shade my garden), I would be way unhappy if the city decided to plant trees on the sunny side of my lot. I would really appreciate having a choice, and would opt for something native (though probably not 150 feet tall).

20 years ago or so, when I took the Master Gardener training through OSU Extension, the lecturer on trees and tree care made a great observation about appropriate tree-planting choices for urban homeowners. He cautioned against planting 'forest giants' in one's yard, and I thought that single piece of advice was one worth broadcasting to all homeowners. Those wee little live Christmas trees we are all urged to purchase as a 'green' option, when planted in one's garden, grow into gargantuan darkness-casting monsters within a couple of decades, shading not only the original planters'yards, but all their hapless neighbors' yards as well.

I would like to believe that city arborists/tree choosers would consider all of these factors when drawing up a list of allowable trees for streetside planting, but somehow I imagine most of them are still inhabiting the mythical world of the 'typical' 19th Century American Midwest Small Town neighborhood.

Yeah, let's do the tree-planted median with cut-outs in front of houses, and the single-direction lanes.

[Michelle D.]

I'd be on the pro side of the tree *if* there were far wiser choices.

My street is lined with trees. They were planted 50 years ago when the homes were built.
Just around the corner is a street with no street trees and it looks barren.
The property values are at least 10 thousand dollars less due to the aesthetics of the look of the neigbhorhood, yet the homes and the lot sizes are exactly the same.

[susan harris]

I'm awaiting a gardenblogger visit any moment (Robin Ripley) but did have time to update the post to answer some of your questions.

[george]

technical point: a median strip is not public land.

its private land within a public right of way. typically, when you buy a city lot, your ownership rights go all the way to the center of the street. if you can convince the city to vacate their right of way, you get all of that back.

[angelchrome]

Thumbs up for trees, thumbs down for stupid sweetgums. I have 23 in my yard and they are without a doubt, the most unholy of all trees.

[Blair Durant]

Beautiful fall color notwithstanding, sweet gum is a terrible choice for that tiny little strip, for various reasons mostly already mentioned. Giving homeowners an option from a short selected list of trees is a great idea, as well as letting "avid gardener" homeowners opt out of having a tree at all. What is needed is a city willing to work with homeowners and a selection of trees which is appropriate for the location.

[Phrago]

Good luck getting the city to vacate their right of way, HA! The city will do exactly what they want unless you sue them, and sometimes threatening to bring the tv cameras out to embarress them works, too. But I have to agree that even with a Arborist on board to oversee the choices made for street trees (like in my town), the city planters make some really bad choices. Personnally, I like lawn grass in the hell strip so youcross the strre or can get out of your car without damaging someone's garden or hurting yourself tripping over inappropriately placed landscape boulders, landscape timbers, etc. Gardening in the hell strip is really a dumb idea, IMO... Patrick

[Kandi]

The strip of land is only 41 inches wide and the city wants to plant trees that are notorious for large, persistent surface roots that tear up sidewalks? Really? I completely agree that residents need a better choice of tree and preferably am variety of choices. Maybe approaching the arborist with some documentation about the destructive nature of sweet gum roots would be a good place to start!

[donna]

Or maybe get a different arborist who knows better in the first place. This is what happens when you go with the lowest bidder.

[Chris, Toronto]

Hi George - I guess 'ownership' will depend on where you live. Here, it's exactly the opposite of what you describe. The city most definitely owns from the centre of the road to a certain # of feet - which in my inner city neighbourhood means about 2/3 of our front yards are owned by the city.

And I ditto the remark about property values - houses on a tree lined street here command a LOT more than hot barren streets. Here, the city will plant for free from a list of about 20 trees.

[marlene]

I applaud the city for their tree planting efforts, but it seems like their plan could be a little better. I dislike the idea of a monoculture on either side of the street because of potential disease problems down the road. Emerald Ash Borer should be teaching us that we need to worry about potential pests beyond what's already here.

I love sweet gums and their spiky balls, but I will confess to never having lived with one. I am concerned, though, with the tree's mature spread of 40 to 60 feet. Does the plan allow enough room for proper development of the mature crown? And what about those houses that are set back only 25 feet?

What about a fast growing, columnar tree like a Lombardy poplar? OK - get up off the floor, I was just kidding!

I hope that the arborist is willing to revisit the plan and consider a mix of tree species and some smaller sizes.

[Scott Kelland]

One minor point, in general there is no more inefficient/expensive/annoying way to do something than to have the 'gummint' do it.

And, since it has been pointed out that median strips are not technically public land, I would probably be a nimby in this case, because of my feelings about property rights. To paraphrase:

"you can have my median strip when you pry it from my cold, dead . . ." well, you know.

Or, to express my thought in haiku (or maybe low-ku):

Looks like a tree, but
really a 'program'; money
is fertilizer