Our View: Another tree, another spat - Opinion - DailyTidings.com - Ashland, OR

Ashland Daily Tidings (Ashland, OR — Wayback)

2016-01-13

Document text

3 of 3 Premium Clicks used this month SUBSCRIBE Print + Online Subscriber Activation  |  Register x Forgot Password | Need an Account? subscribe | newsletter | deals Classifieds Jobs Autos Real Estate NEWS NOW   Crash kills Ashland man, Grants Pass woman       ...       Keeping an eye on Ashland's feathered friends       ...       Chamber programs inform, facilitate community conversation       ...       Crash kills Ashland man, Grants Pass woman       ...       Keeping an eye on Ashland's feathered friends       ...       Chamber programs inform, facilitate community conversation       ...           OUR VIEW Our View: Another tree, another spat Comment DailyTidings.com Writer Posted Jan. 5, 2016 at 12:01 AM Posted Jan. 5, 2016 at 12:01 AM »  Social News It's unfortunate that an old street tree was cut down without notifying both property owners who had an interest in it. But it would be more unfortunate if this unusual situation prompted city officials to overreact and adopt a new, cumbersome ordinance. The latest case of a tree not everyone wanted to see cut involves a century-old black locust in the parking strip of the 300 block of B Street. After a limb fell off, the arborist hired by a homeowner determined the tree had internal rot and posed a hazard, so the resident had it cut down. In the case of this particular tree, the resident who had it removed was not the tree's only owner. The property line runs through the tree, so the owner of the next-door property also had an interest. He was not notified, and he is not happy. It's clear in this case that the neighboring property owner should have been notified and given an opportunity to negotiate the removal. The city code provides no rules for the removal of street trees, and permits are generally issued if a tree is determined to pose a hazard. A clause requiring that the complete ownership of the tree be determined before removal would be reasonable. But that's as far as it should go. If a tree is entirely on one person's property, that owner should be able to remove it if they wish. No one else should have anything to say about it. DailyTidings.com Writer Posted Jan. 5, 2016 at 12:01 AM » Comment or view comments   Reader Reaction »  STAY INFORMED   Email NewsLetter   Sign Up Today   Sign up for our newsletter and have the top headlines from your community delivered right to your inbox. Southern Oregon Directory Featured Businesses Loading... Business Name address Location, ST | website.com Find Southern Oregon Attractions Bars Restaurants Beauty Salons Entertainment Doctors Medical Specialists Contractors Education Lawn Services Lawyers Shopping Travel Tanning Used Cars Wedding Services ▼ Add your business here + Events Calendar Connect with DailyTidings.com Facebook Twitter RSS Back to top Reader Services Reader Services home Subscriptions Subscriber controls Contact us Submissions Photos Events Letters to the editor Corrections Alerts Email alerts RSS feeds Text Alerts Advertise Media Kit Home Products and services Ad rates Advertising contacts Propel Marketing Mail Tribune Daily Tidings The Nickel Shop Our Valley Blogs Mobile Site Stay Informed   Email newsletter   Sign Up Today   Sign up for our newsletter and have the top headlines from your community delivered right to your inbox. Your privacy is important, read our privacy policy. © Copyright 2016 Local Media Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.    Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service  |  Local Media Group Publications Original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons license, except where noted. DailyTidings.com | P.O. Box 1108, Medford, OR 97501