Arborcide in Maplewood?
If it's not a foregone conclusion, why even bring it up, let alone in an unrelated thread about trees in residential neighborhoods?
In any case, I'd have to recheck the site plan to see where the four in Ricalton's are. I suspect it's where the parking near the mailbox is, in which case the PB would have to determine whether the loss of a few spaces is worth it-- I'm indifferent, though would encourage new plantings to satisfy both if possible. As to the other two, I could easily support losing the oak next to the PO (clearly irrecoverable given its immediate proximity to the site) and saving the one next to VC. Seems to me a logical compromise I could live with.
Regardless, I think this particular discussionshould be moved to one of the other 412 PO threads if it still warrants debate.
ctrzaska said:
If it's not a foregone conclusion, why even bring it up, let alone in an unrelated thread about trees in residential neighborhoods?
In any case, I'd have to recheck the site plan to see where the four in Ricalton's are. I suspect it's where the parking near the mailbox is, in which case the PB would have to determine whether the loss of a few spaces is worth it-- I'm indifferent, though would encourage new plantings to satisfy both if possible. As to the other two, I could easily support losing the oak next to the PO (clearly irrecoverable given its immediate proximity to the site) and saving the one next to VC. Seems to me a logical compromise I could live with.
Regardless, I think this particular discussionshould be moved to one of the other 412 PO threads if it still warrants debate.
Please look at the site plan prior to "suspecting" - it's right there in black and white....The 4 in Ricalton have not to do with the mail box location. they are fully across the south end of Ricalton Sq.
As for the 412 threads with 20,000 posts on the PO, that just shows how important it is. and when trees are discussed in the neighborhood that is part of it.
and btw, San Diego red ballooners have won their case. The town has to start all over.....great precedent!
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Oh-No-60/318894828302972?fref=ts
That said, I am sorry to have hijacked this thread. As you were...
Elle_Cee said:
Why?
Although you received an "answer" at 10:37 I frankly would get some real answers from main Maplewood tree person. It is my opinion backed up by past history that the poster who provided you this answer is often not accurate in her statements, regardless of the screen name de jour they're using.
Wendy Lauter
You are more like Miley Cyrus than author is.
OliveBee said:
ctrzaska said:Please look at the site plan prior to "suspecting" - it's right there in black and white....The 4 in Ricalton have not to do with the mail box location. they are fully across the south end of Ricalton Sq.
If it's not a foregone conclusion, why even bring it up, let alone in an unrelated thread about trees in residential neighborhoods?
In any case, I'd have to recheck the site plan to see where the four in Ricalton's are. I suspect it's where the parking near the mailbox is, in which case the PB would have to determine whether the loss of a few spaces is worth it-- I'm indifferent, though would encourage new plantings to satisfy both if possible. As to the other two, I could easily support losing the oak next to the PO (clearly irrecoverable given its immediate proximity to the site) and saving the one next to VC. Seems to me a logical compromise I could live with.
Regardless, I think this particular discussionshould be moved to one of the other 412 PO threads if it still warrants debate.
As for the 412 threads with 20,000 posts on the PO, that just shows how important it is. and when trees are discussed in the neighborhood that is part of it.
and btw, San Diego red ballooners have won their case. The town has to start all over.....great precedent!
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Oh-No-60/318894828302972?fref=ts
That said, I am sorry to have hijacked this thread. As you were...
Some people can't get it done in the PO thread, so they hijack this one hoping for a new audience. It's sad, but refreshing to know that wherever they turn, they LOSE.
Lose? Not a "forgone conclusion".
The tree thing is disconcerting and people should know. When the trees are gone folks will ask "what happened?" By then it will be too late.
Joni Michell was so right.
OliveBee said:
Lose? Not a "forgone conclusion".
The tree thing is disconcerting and people should know. When the trees are gone folks will ask "what happened?" By then it will be too late.
Joni Michell was so right.
The population of the United States is growing. And people want larger personal living spaces. How many people, for example, live alone or with a partner in a house large enough for a family of 5 or 6.
So where exactly do you propose people live? In already developed areas or should we continue the rape of farmland?
If you sincerely care about the environment, the answer is clear.
The tree on the north side of the PO has been dropping enormous limbs, hopefully not on any cars. The other tree on Ricalton, is also not doing well. It's a shame if DPW is removing the wrong trees accidentally, but trees known to be a potential harm should probably be removed ASAP, if they cannot be saved adequately.
I had to have the only large tree in my yard removed two years ago because it had developed a large crack after Sandy and would have crushed my daughters room. It was heart wrenching to see it go, but the alternative would have been absolutely devastating.
When I lived in a beautiful landmarked courtyard building in Queens I witnessed firsthand a large tree drop a huge branch on one of my friends, giving her a concussion. She fortunately survived. Those trees had been a point of contention amongst the shareholders for over a year. That incident turned my viewpoint to support of the trees removal. And while I was sad to see m 4th floor squirrel neighbor's tree habitat removed, I was glad that noone else would be subject to having to throw their grand-daughter from their arms so they wouldn't be bludgeoned to death by a falling limb. I had to console that young girl for an afternoon while the grandmother was rushed to the hospital, not knowing what to say to her because I had no idea if she was going to survive, but knowing that she was smart enough to push her grand-daughter out of harms way.
OliveBee said:
Lose? Not a "forgone conclusion".
The tree thing is disconcerting and people should know. When the trees are gone folks will ask "what happened?" By then it will be too late.
Joni Michell was so right.
The reality of lost trees wherever they are is part of this post ..getting a lot touchy here and off course .
And of whom do you speak Wendy when you say the remarks are not always accurate !?
@AB,
While the story that you relate is unfortunate, tho with a good ending,, and I myself have just chosen to take down 2 trees on my own property so that does not happen (as limbs are falling on my neighbor's side), that is not the focus of the PO trees. The decision to take down those trees are being made by the developer so he can erect a generic Everywhere USA building on the denuded, razed property.
His renderings show new 30 foot tall trees...well, we know that's not happening, is it?
The PO building is ringed by numerous ornamental trees, which are healthy and bloom in a gorgeous fashion every Spring. While there may be a few of the 15 or so slated for removal that are not the best specimens, the decision to remove those trees, the ones both in and close to the designated area, should be made by the town's contracted arborist, and not by the TC or the developer.
Let's hope the Planning Board sees thru this nonsense.
icdart said:
The reality of lost trees wherever they are is part of this post ..getting a lot touchy here and off course .
And of whom do you speak Wendy when you say the remarks are not always accurate !?
I made it clear who I spoke of "icdart".
Wendy Lauter
Real name, only name, no other names
Ok Miley-You mean the planning board who approved this Redevelopment Plan text? I think they'll be ok with the developer conforming to their own Ordinance...
Demolition
It is proposed that the site be completely cleared of existing buildings, parking lots and other improvements, as well as existing trees and other plantings. The Plan proposes a significant change in use over
the current conditions, and there is no reason to retain any of the existing structures or vegetation.
OliveBee said:
@AB,
While the story that you relate is unfortunate, tho with a good ending,, and I myself have just chosen to take down 2 trees on my own property so that does not happen (as limbs are falling on my neighbor's side), that is not the focus of the PO trees. The decision to take down those trees are being made by the developer so he can erect a generic Everywhere USA building on the denuded, razed property.
His renderings show new 30 foot tall trees...well, we know that's not happening, is it?
The PO building is ringed by numerous ornamental trees, which are healthy and bloom in a gorgeous fashion every Spring. While there may be a few of the 15 or so slated for removal that are not the best specimens, the decision to remove those trees, the ones both in and close to the designated area, should be made by the town's contracted arborist, and not by the TC or the developer.
Let's hope the Planning Board sees thru this nonsense.
Abbie Baby, they also need to conform with the town ordinance, to which the RP defers and refers.....the appeal will be the deciding factor here.
Demolition. In keeping with the
preservation element of the Township of Maplewood's Master Plan, which
recognizes the need to preserve structures of historical significance,
no building within the district shall be demolished without its owner
demonstrating significant financial hardship and without having a
proposed alternative for new construction (i.e., schematic plans drawn
by a licensed architect or engineer) approved by the MVA Design Review
Committee and Village Alliance Board and the Planning Board with proof
of project financing, i.e., lease agreements, loan agreements, mortgage
commitments, etc., except in instances where the Uniform Construction
Code requires the demolition of a fire-damaged building.
get over it AB...sheeeesh!
Why do you, Fred and company continue to think a general ordinance trumps a specific ordinance?
I have no doubt how the appeal will turn out. The planning board aren't dummies.
"which recognizes the need to preserve structures of historical significance"
I can't begin to comprehend the mental gymnastics required to conceive of the former P.O. warehouse as a structure of historical significance.
AB/Abbie, the reason is that the RP requires the project to conform with the MVA/SID criteria. simple as that. It's in the RP and it's in the MVA/SID charter, and reinforced in Dec.
Sheeesh!
OliveBee said:
AB/Abbie, the reason is that the RP requires the project to conform with the MVA/SID criteria. simple as that. It's in the RP and it's in the MVA/SID charter, and reinforced in Dec.
Sheeesh!
Sheesh all you want, that doesnt make it so. I'm sure you are aware that every attorney familiar with this travesty ( even Fred and the VK) recognizes that no one has to prove financial hardship, that another suit if there is one will fail.
sarahzm said:
OliveBee said:Sheesh all you want, that doesnt make it so. I'm sure you are aware that every attorney familiar with this travesty ( even Fred and the VK) recognizes that no one has to prove financial hardship, that another suit if there is one will fail.
AB/Abbie, the reason is that the RP requires the project to conform with the MVA/SID criteria. simple as that. It's in the RP and it's in the MVA/SID charter, and reinforced in Dec.
Sheeesh!
Sarah, don't even think of speaking for Fred. Fred and the VK board can speak for themselves.
The VK suit makes me think of an old George Carlin routine. He talked about he and his wiseass friend would try to stump the priest with questions like "Hey Faddah! If God is all-powerful, can he create a rock so big that he himself cannot lift it?"
that's like the VK claim -- that the TC has in effect created a rock that they themselves cannot lift. They passed an ordinance to demolish the PO, but according to VK, subsequently passed another ordinance making it next to impossible to do so. Their case is absurd beyond belief.
Featured Events
-
Go "Back to the '70s" with The Maplewood Glee Club and Special Guests from CHS
May 19, 2024 at 4:00pm
For Sale
-
2007 Honda Fit $4,400
More info
Free Items
Advertisement
No one said its a foregone conclusion. I for one hope it's not. But it is hard to see the transit village crap being built without removing those trees on the designated property. Why the other ones in Ricalton and near village coffee need to come out is beyond me.
And as tjohn has said if any are diseased or severely damaged beyond care of course they should come down. But that should be determined by the arborist not by JMF.