Hey, there! Log in / Register
Citizen complaint of the day: Damn tree
By adamg on Thu, 05/23/2013 - 3:00pm
All across Boston, people keep asking the city to plant trees. But not on East Broadway in South Boston, where a concerned citizen demands the city take out a newly planted tree near N Street:
Please do not plant tree, it is not wanted by the residents of building it abuts and will ruin my view - there is already one very close to it.
Neighborhoods:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
I don't think the complainer understands how it works
The sidewalk is in the public way and owned and maintained by the City, the trees are there for improvement and the public's enjoyment. The person making the complaint does not own it nor do they own the "view".
I suppose they could take matters in their own hands, but considering the consequences, I don't think that would be advisable.
It worked for the Harvard Lampoon
Lampoon Tree Felled; Vellucci Slams Butchery.
Death of a Tree: Who Killed It? Are More in Peril?
What is it with the Lampoon
What is it with the Lampoon and trees?
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2007/10/19/poon-...
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1926/11/11/unkno...
'Maintained by the City"
'Maintained by the City" really?....Funny, when it snows out the City isn't out there shoveling it- I am, to avoid the fine for not clearing snow within the alotted time frame.
Maintenance: your choice
You and I (property owners in Boston) could either shovel the walk (or pay some kid to do it) or, alternatively, the city could take care of it.
Which, of course, means that the city would collect taxes from you and me and use the tax money to hire someone to shovel the walk.
In either case, it's you and I who maintain the walk; the second option merely passes the money through several administrative layers and uses expensive union labor instead of the neighbor's kid.
For my money, I'll take the first option.
Get your facts straight, the City does collect taxes
I've lived in Boston since Christ wore slippers. The City of Boston use to remove the snow from sidewalks. I believe our property taxes paid for it. The City decides to stop this practice and put it on the homeowners to clean the snow from the sidewalks in front of their houses. I don't ever recall seeing a refund on my tax bill for the discontinuation of this service. It is an undue hardship on the elderly homeowners of the City many who cannot afford to pay someone to do it for them.
Oh come on.
You and I (the homeowner) are paying for it either way, whether we do it ourselves or whether the city does it. No, you didn't see a refund on your taxes, but, since the city runs a balanced budget, your taxes are lower than they would be if the city were to clean the sidewalks. I guarantee, for the "elderly homeowners who cannot afford to pay someone to do it for them" of whom you speak, that it's cheaper to hire the neighborhood kid than it is to get the tax increase.
Think about this for a second: After a snowstorm, if you want to clean the sidewalks within a reasonable amount of time, you need thousands of people on the job; people whom you don't need the rest of the time. Which is more efficient overall, having the city staff that up, or distributing it out to the people?
Hmm... lots of people you
Hmm... lots of people you don't need the rest of the time. That would be a great opportunity for high school students to earn some cash. It's too bad they don't close the schools when it snows a lot.
Really?
When exactly was this?
I never said I owned
I never said I owned anything, not the view or the sidewalk. I have to deal with all the negative elements of the changes that have taken place in my neighborhood why can't I request to have something in the citys control not to happen if it makes my home a better place? And who is "enjoying the trees?"...they make huge heaves in the sidewalks, all the crap that comes off of them lands on your car, and I don't see anyone making tree houses or having picknicks underneath the ones on the sidewalk?
I would never destroy City property under any circumstances...you took that one way too far...never indicated anything even remotely close to that.
Move in, complain, whine.....
The Yuppies on this block think their shit doesn't stink. Overlooking M Street park, they complain about everything. Are they afraid this tree is going to block their view of the other neighborhood Yuppies letting their dogs run unleashed and crapping all over the park?
I never liked the people on
I never liked the people on that block growing up either, they never gave out any trick or treat candy but there are alot of people who have been here all their lives on that block now and I can assure you my shit does in fact stink. There are some jerks that still live there but don't throw the entire block under the bus. What else do "we" complain about? Could you be more specific?
The unleashed dogs in the park..I am in full agteement on that point. (I don't own a dog).
Their pissed off
because their parents who gave them the $150k deposit on their overpriced condos are just realizing that it's not worth the 20% they gave them.
Fear not, you can resell it to another unsuspecting Yupster who is dying to move to Southie so they can pretend they are gangsters.
I believe property owners do
I believe property owners do have some say in whether or not a city tree can be planted in front of their property. I live on a corner and a damaged city tree was recently removed on one side of my property. I submitted a request to have a new tree planted. The city sent a letter a few months before the new tree was scheduled to be planted notifying me that a request had been submitted and to contact the city if I had an issue with it. As it turns out the city planted the new tree in the wrong spot, along the property line of my neighbor’s yard on the opposite side who did not want a tree. They had planted a beautiful Japanese maple a few years back and the new tree was planted right in front of their tree. The city came back out and moved the tree to proper spot. I have to say, the planting coordinator was very helpful.
Well...
there's always the alternative solution... make like a tree and leave!
p.s.
You know what really ruins views? Obnoxiously oversized housing complexes on every single empty plot of land some slime-bucket developer can get their greedy hands on... hope that tree grows big enough to cast a glooming shadow onto your "building".
"Yuppie" demands Tree Removal
Dear Adamg,
I am the "Yuppie" (Born and raised here-lived here when it wasn't popular) who "demands" (I did not demand-I asked-I even said "Please"!) that the tree which was put in front of my house not be planted there. Yes, I do have a good view of the park and the parade on St Pats which I don't want to give up,,,So, whats wrong with that? Your assumption that this request is from outsider/yuppie is completely inaccurate and frankly, although there's no love lost between myself and some of the newer elements that have moved into my neighborhood, I think the whole "yuppie" story angle dried up a while ago and it's getting sorta tiresome even to a hardcore local which is exactly what I am by anyone who knows me and has lived heres definition.
Yeah, I don't a tree in front of my house. so what?
Here's what.
You don't own your view. It's as simple as that.
I live in Quincy and paid a boatload of money (no pun intended) to have a view of Boston Harbor. Now there is a proposed development on the horizon (pun intended) that might block part of my view.
Guess what? Tough luck for me. I don't own rights to look out my window and see Boston Harbor.
Well yeah.. but..
You can still express your preference to not have the development in your way. It may not happen, but you can express that request... or is that not allowed?