Have a tree trimming party and invite these guys

The longer I follow Sioux Falls city politics and government, the more I am convinced this city is run by ideologues. I got further proof of this last night when I attended an informational and Q & A meeting with the Sioux Falls Parks and Recreation forestry manager (Duane) about project TRIM.

City department heads have their own ideas on the city’s appearance and growth, and most citizens have different ideas, and they are not sitting at the table and ironing out those differences. That was quite apparent last night during the meeting.

The SF Parks and Rec wants us to trim our trees to their standards. I’ll give them credit, they do make some good arguments. They have some liability issues with delivery vehicles, fire and rescue and snowplows getting damaged by low hanging branches. They also have stated cases of people getting knocked in the head by a low hanging branch while walking at night (I could go into a tirade about that, but I will keep it to myself). Yes, these things should concern us, but that is what the city has insurance for.

I also agree that trees need to be trimmed and maintained on a regular basis. I trim my boulevard tree all summer long, because water sprouts grow out of it like a weed. But after receiving the project TRIM letter from the city, I will be forced to cut off two gigantic branches from the tree. Fine,  I’m okay with that. But I disagree with how the city is going about project TRIM. I believe there should be a concerted effort between the city and the property owners to get the trees trimmed. But the city sees it differently. Here’s some highlights from last night’s meeting which was attended by about 10-12 citizens, including a very animated school teacher (funny stuff).

 

          Project TRIM was initiated by the forestry manager on his own, Duane. He admitted to it last night. Duane said there was no formal vote by the council to approve the project because the ordinance already existed, which troubles me. I’m certain when the original council approved the ordinance they felt it would be enforced on a complaint basis only. Duane claims that a complaint basis wasn’t working because people felt like they were being picked on. So the solution is to pick on the entire district instead? This should have been thought out better and approved by the council and mayor by an ordinance vote so the citizens could have had some input. Letting one sole individual in a city department who isn’t even elected make this decision is bad public policy but normal operating procedure for Parks and Rec. Remember, their board members are volunteer political appointments by the mayor and not elected, they also have no accountability to the public.

          If the city charges you to trim your trees, it will cost $150 an hour. They justify this cost because you are paying for the P & R person to drive to your house and get his equipment ready. This ignited the school teacher. He basically said that he doesn’t get paid for ‘preparing lessons’ and ‘driving to school’ he gets paid to teach. He makes a good point. We already pay P & R wages, they should be charging us for the trimming only. They (The P & R director, Don, was there to) admitted they charge that much because they don’t want to be forced to do it, and they hope it will persuade people to do it themselves and comply. Makes sense, but it is still highway robbery just the same.

          One citizen complained that the code enforcement/project TRIM letter that is sent out is threatening. P & R admits this was done purposely to intimidate property owners into complying, or as they said “getting to the point.” Many complained this was poor customer service, to say the least. I complained that I don’t approve of ‘blanket code enforcement’ since they cannot be specific about what tree(s) need to be trimmed. In fact that was the biggest complaint from most everyone there. Citizens don’t have a way of measuring and understanding the compliance. I also felt this was forcing some citizens into hiring private contractors to do the work, and I think the city should not be in the business of promoting private contractors with my tax dollars.

          Unlike project NICE they will not come by and pickup your branches after you trim them. I said I don’t have a problem with trimming the branches myself but thought it would be a nice gesture (since I am a taxpayer) to have the city come by and pickup the branches like they do with project NICE. The response was “That’s a different project” Well duh! But why not do the same thing. The reply? “We tried it and it doesn’t work.” So I guess we just give up? I think it didn’t work because it was not done in connection with the letter. I think if they send out the letter with specifics on what tree(s) to trim and give a date they will be in your neighborhood to pick up the branches it would work. I also think they could ‘assist’ with any branches you had trouble trimming on your own. This would also give them an opportunity to inspect. Lots of birds killed with one stone (I know, tough to swallow because beaucracies do not work that way).

          Some asked why the city can’t just trim the trees while they are out inspecting. There excuse was there is not enough ‘Manpower’. I pointed out that they had plenty of ‘Manpower’ to inspect the neighborhoods, write down the addresses, get out and measure, compile the letters and money to mail them out, but not enough to actually trim the trees? No response. I failed to mention they also have the manpower and funds to cut down all the nice birches in Yankton trail park and replant and water all summer, but no time or money for the citizens.

          Some solutions that were offered was reorganizing P & R budget money to project TRIM and trying to get prison trustees to help out the fixed income and elderly. P & R’s solution? We’ll give you an extention.  Woo Hoo! It’s like the IRS giving an extention, at the end of the day, you still have to pay your taxes.

          One guy showed up defending the project. No surprise, I won’t mention his name, but he works for a certain downtown non-profit and often shows up to defend the city at various meetings. He suggested a neighborhood tree trimming party. Yeah, because nothing goes together like BBQ, beer and chainsaws. Hey, you go for it, don’t forget to wear your Jackyl t-shirt. Nobody responded to his idea, and he walked out. That’s usually the reaction when this guy opens his mouth at municipal meetings. He probably had to rush off and make it to another brown nosing session somewhere else.

Towards the end of the meeting though it seemed that the Don and Duane were willing to help out a little and agree to come out and mark trees that needed it if we call, so I haven’t lost hope yet.

What do you think? Should the city work together with the citizens on project TRIM since they are the ones complaining about liability? I think so. Pretty soon they will have us maintaining our own road in front of our house if this keeps up.

8 Thoughts on “Project TRIM public meeting update

  1. Plaintiff Guy on March 14, 2009 at 9:46 am said:

    It makes no sense to have a 100K city worker with a 2 million insurance retirement benefits package trim trees. In this economy, he should be let go and have to compete for a job as a 30K tree trim bid contractor. On the other hand, send them out. We’ll release the coon dogs and keep them treed till they give up on the TRIM project.

  2. l3wis on March 14, 2009 at 3:41 pm said:

    I will be honest, I think it is a good program idea, in concept, it just lacks customer service. Big time!

    Like I said in the meeting, they treat all citizens like code enforcement violators, when 99.9% are responsible property owners, and may be wrong, but I swear I saw Don’s head shake yes.

  3. Costner on March 16, 2009 at 10:25 am said:

    Should the city work together with the citizens on project TRIM since they are the ones complaining about liability?

    They should make it more clear which tree or trees need the trimming, but they shouldn’t handle the trimming and/or haul away branches.

    If a homeowner decides to plant a tree on their property (or buy a house with an existing tree), it is their responsibility to maintain that tree. If the tree roots buckle the sidewalk or grow into their sewer line, it is their duty to resolve the issue just as it is their duty to trim the tree to ensure people can walk on sidewalks or drive reasonably sized vehicles (delivery trucks etc) on the roads without hitting branches.

    In a perfect world people would trim their trees before the city even got involved, but we don’t live in a perfect world.

  4. Actually the city is responsible for trees that cause problems (sidewalk and sewer lines). They will remove them for free. I agree that normal maintenance I should remove my own branches, but since the city is blanketing an entire district I think it would be a nice gester to pickup the branches, besides they can use the mulch. If they set it up like Project NICE with a combination of a letter, I think it could work. If they think it is fair to do blanket code enforcement, they should help out a little on it. As I said in the meeting, I think anything on the boulvard is a JOINT ownership of the city and the property owner, and we should be working together to relieve the problems associated with the tree branches. I don’t think that is a unreasonable request – besides, WTF do we pay taxes for anymore?

  5. Costner on March 16, 2009 at 12:24 pm said:

    Well duh….we pay taxes for things like new windows in the Washington Pavilion and for summer mid-day daily waterings at Yankton trail park.

    I swear it’s almost as if you aren’t paying attention.

  6. In defense of the waterings, that doesn’t cost us anything because it is irrigated unfiltered from the river, the only cost is the extra mowing because of the over watering.

    Funny you bring up the windows, and elderly man at the meeting got in Don’s face and said, “We got $800,000 for windows on that darn Pavilion but nothing to trim trees?”

    I was laughing a lot during the meeting.

  7. Costner on March 16, 2009 at 4:44 pm said:

    Interesting and valid point about the pumping straight from the river. I wonder what would happen to a homeowner living along the river if they were to try something similar.

    I’d bet the city would have it shut down before the grass was even wet.

  8. l3wis on March 17, 2009 at 6:33 am said:

    The funny part is that straight river water is better for your lawn, they should encourage it.

Post Navigation