Last month, people called the city, outraged after a West Seattle man was suspected of cutting down 10 maple trees on public property to get a better view.
It was an apparent violation of city and state law and a parks department ordinance that protects environmentally sensitive land.
But the actions didn't shock Mark Mead, the city's senior urban forester who reported the cutting to police.
"This kind of thing happens four or five times a year," Mead said.
Most tree cuttings don't get news media attention.
"We're going to see more of these incidents as the summer heats up," Mead predicted.
There are typical places crews expected to find trees cut to get a better view.
The area along Harbor Avenue Southwest, where the recent West Seattle cutting happened, is a hot spot. So are areas around the Burke-Gilman Trail, Alki Beach and Lake Washington Boulevard.
"I get information of illegal tree cutting probably once every three months," PlantAmnesty founder Cass Turnbull said. "I suspect it goes on once a month."
She hears "horrible stories of people coming home to trees being cut" and trees with rings of bark cut to kill it.
City workers say what's most frustrating is that while it may appear homeowners directly above a tree-removal site are responsible, charges can't be filed unless there's proof that will hold up in court.
The man suspected in the West Seattle case has not been charged and would not comment on the ongoing police investigation. That case is unique because detectives found a strong lead after talking with neighbors, Mead said.
Often, a culprit is never found.
Mead has no idea who went to West Seattle last year and cut the tops of trees that housed a bald eagle's nest.
He'd like to find clues in a case from last February, when three types of trees were cut in the same area along the Burke-Gilman Trail. And he wants to know who dumped poison last fall on the bases of trees in a roughly 100-square-foot area near the boat launch near Lake Washington Boulevard.
In addition to criminal charges, the perpetrators may also face civil suits for replacement costs.
In a few cases, Mead said, people make simple mistakes by thinking trees they want to remove are on private property. Earlier this year, city workers found tree crews had felled 10 publicly owned trees along Lake Washington Boulevard. Mead said the homeowners have been "very helpful" since realizing their blunder.
"We try to be flexible, and we do allow pruning of city-owned trees through our tree-trimming policy," Mead said. "But people can't remove trees solely to better their view."
He said that in the West Seattle case, trees were cut on property owned by neighbors, the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Department of Transportation, which is responsible for activity in the public right of way, including planting strips.
"He could have gotten a permit to prune the parks department trees and reduced the canopies by about one-third," Mead said of the tree cutter. "But he would not have been allowed to do what he did."
Arthur Lee Jacobson, author of "Trees of Seattle," said the cut maples will resprout but called the cutting deplorable.
When city-owned trees are removed in Seattle, which has 2,500 acres of forested areas, officials look at the economic value of the removed trees and the cost of restoring the site when determining restitution.
"If your property value increases $100,000 because of the view you have after cutting city trees, that's one way to find the value of those trees," Mead said, adding there are also other regulations regarding trees on public and private property.
Mead said the city maintains 24 viewpoints, "but we don't maintain native land for view, and that's where some of the neighbors have different opinions." While some homeowners complain that trees eventually block their view and decrease property values, city officials and environmentalists say the trees have an inherent value that protects them.
In January 2003, federal Judge Jerome Farris agreed to pay $500,000 plus interest to restore and improve Seattle's Colman Park, where his gardener cut down more than 120 trees to improve the judge's view of Lake Washington. The large penalty seemed to temporarily deter other would-be illegal tree cutters, but the numbers have crept back up, Mead said.
Tree cutting on private property -- even when legal -- has caused emotional battles between neighbors and developers. Neighbors protested trees coming down in Maple Leaf where land owned by Camp Fire USA was sold to developers. They objected to tree removal near Greenwood Avenue North, where old homes and parking lots are being turned into shops and housing. Residents also have tried to stop plans to fell more than 80 mature trees at Ingraham High School.
Last year, Mayor Greg Nickels released the Urban Forest Management Plan, which aims to increase tree cover from 18 percent to 30 percent in 30 years.
An Emerald City task force was convened and in December released its tree-saving recommendations. Now the city is reviewing and updating its tree regulations.
"It's a difficult situation because if you save every tree, you can't have a great deal of affordable housing," said Garrett Huffman, a lobbyist for the Master Builder Association of King and Snohomish Counties. Building around trees can add thousands of dollars to building plans, "and if you ask a homeowner if they would rather cut a tree at the end of its growth cycle or add an additional $10,000 to their building plans, they universally say to get rid of the tree."
Huffman, who wants builders to follow environmental laws, said the association would never condone illegal cutting, but he understands why it happens.
"Views are becoming more and more expensive. Unfortunately, some people think it's easier asking for forgiveness than it is asking for permission."The Seattle PI
