Hendricks Park - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

• place us in a position of having to remove more trees, including undisputedly healthy ones, in order to eliminate a danger we have created by removing the targeted trees. Acting hastily now may set off a domino effect which could ultimately require removal of every Douglas fir in this end of the park. Once the targeted trees are removed we cannot replace them so it behooves us to be certain we have thoroughly evaluated all the consequences of removing these trees prior • to doing so. I am personally persuaded by the knowledge and experience expressed by Mr. Prior and Mr. LaPine in this regard, but clearly not everyone on the committee is so convinced and perhaps the opinions of other experts would be useful in reaching consensus. 5. We have not received any advice from the City Attorney in regard to the City's liability in the event of damage or injury from falling trees, or the defenses to such liability. We need such advice. The situation we are in presents a rather sticky wicket. At this point it is plausible to argue that if one of the targeted trees falls and causes injury or damage, the city arguably has some liability since these trees have been identified, whether correctly or not, as hazardous. However, we have also been advised that removing these trees will increase the danger that other trees in the area will fall. What if we take them out and a healthy tree falls? The damage is at least as foreseeable as it was before, and, according to our most knowledgeable members, more likely as a result of our "solution ". If we don't remove the trees the City appears to have a pretty good "assumption of risk" defense to an action for damages resulting from a falling tree, particularly if the tree which falls is not one of the targeted trees, as was the only tree that has fallen in the area recently. The trees were here before the houses and those who live in the shadow of the trees decided to live under the trees after full opportunity to evaluate the risks of doing so. If we act in a manner which increases the danger to area residents and they are injured as a result it is hard to see that the City has much of a defense. We need a legal opinion in this regard. 6. I am concemed that if the trees must be removed, we not act merely to address the perception of danger by residents who live in the shadow of these trees, but make our judgment on the basis of a rational determination of the risks of all the available courses of action, including that of doing nothing at all. Trees by their very nature exist in a state of unstable equilibrium, that is why they all fall eventually. Those who choose to live in the shade of trees must accept that fact. In view of the fact that the tree which fell recently and whose fall initiated this inquiry, was to all appearance perfectly lacking in any of the identified risk factors, I do not really see how merely removing the targeted trees can rationally allow the residents of the area feel any safer. Analyzed rationally, nothing short of removing every tree within range of their homes regardless of the health of the trees will suffice to ensure their safety. I believe this is a radical remedy which should not be initiated without a broad consensus and a mandate from the community as a whole.