Letter to the Editor: N 175th Orange Ribbons Tied to Trees – Gone!
Thursday, May 23, 2024
 |
| Orange ribbons on N 175th provided a dramatic visual about trees at risk |
The orange ribbons tied to hundreds of trees to be removed for the N 175th corridor project provided a quick visual communication to residents that the trees are at risk of being cut down unless the design along N 175th corridor project is revised.
Save Shoreline Trees and Tree Action Seattle volunteers tied all of the ribbons last week before the “Stop the Chop” rally on Sunday. City officials assured Save Shoreline Trees that staff would not remove the orange ribbons or signs. We talked with the city grounds manager who confirmed that when the grassy strips were mowed, the campaign signs would be protected. And they were.
Thousands of residents driving in N 175th traffic saw the ribbons and have been startled by the number of trees to be cut down for the N 175th project.
On Wednesday, all of the orange ribbons and signs along N 175th were removed except for a few on the rockeries. Obviously, some did not agree with this visual display as there have been a few negative comments to a local online group. Why does this person or group not come forward and make a public statement, rather than hide under anonymity?
We had the hope the orange ties on the trees and “Stop the Chop” signs would remain until City Council discusses the N 175th corridor project on Monday, June 3. If you saw any activity of the removal of the orange ribbons or signs on Wednesday or have any information where the signs might be, please email saveshorelinetrees@gmail.com.
Kathleen Russell
Save Shoreline Trees
Kathleen Russell
Save Shoreline Trees
Posts
9 comments:
Those INVASIVE trees need to be removed so NATIVE trees can be planted and safer sidewalks can be built and maintained for the children going to school and for ADA use. Attempting to save and INVASIVE species is worse for the environment. If you truly believed in environmental advocacy- advocate for NATIVE BIODIVERSITY AND HUSBANDRY. Saving those trees cause more harm to the local flora. Saving those INVASIVE trees is at best virtual signaling.
If those people feel so strongly why don't they just come out and talk? There were so many people there on Sunday who would have welcomed the opportunity, and Save Shoreline Trees is easy to find. Very disappointing.
To anonymous at 10:48 on May 23: those trees are not invasive, they are ornamental, which is quite different. They also provide shade and such and are generally good for the environment. Certainly they do no harm to native trees.
None of trees at risk of removal are invasive per the King County Noxious plant list, and many are native. Non-native does not equal invasive. Non-native trees are often planted along streets because they are more tolerant of pollution and other traffic impacts than native trees. The trees on 175th are a wide variety of species, including maple cultivars, pines, ornamental plums and incense cedars--none of which are invasive, although they are not native. There are also a number of Douglas firs to be removed, which are native.
I wish we spent as much energy educating the public on the effects of invasive English ivy on our existing tree population as we do fighting to save these select trees, the large majority of which are non-native scrub trees with little ecological value. Spend some time looking around the neighborhood at the number of legacy trees being choked out by ivy, and you'll see that it far outweighs the 274 trees people are trying to save along this street.
Most of us do advocate for the things you recommend, but these mature street trees were planted by the Dept. of Transportation. DOTs rarely work with native stock because they prefer very straight up and down trees which are often grafted, but very predictable in their growth habits. There are plenty of cities, including Seattle, that have guidance for building sidewalks around trees, so that everyone can travel safely. Now, exactly which of these trees are invasive? Can you cite any nearby sites where they may have spread?
This is so silly. The city is going to plant more trees as part of their project. Plus, look around, shoreline is NOT hurting for trees! Wish y’all would get passionate about more pressing issues like homelessness, public safety, or racial equity (to name a few).
To bad we (the people in the community) don't get to vote on issues like the trees and changes to the area. The city council only hears from a few usually the ones with something to gain.
Cutting mature trees all over the Puget Sound area, and telling the public that saplings are an equal replacement is inaccurate. Besides cleaning the carbon from the air they providide safe resting and nesting places for different bird species along with other pollinators. There are other cities in the area that have saved their mature trees by implementing sidewalks that go around and over their roots, leaving walkways completely accessible for everyone to use. The Puget Sound region has already lost 30 percent of its urban forest and this continuation of anti-tree infastructure strategy needs to be reimagined. Those who think the only issue in this area of importance has to do with humans and their problems should wake up! Everything matters in this world including the urban trees, wildlife and humans. It’s called having balance of existence and appreciating nature and all it provides for humans! Do your homework before you criticize those who are trying to preserve the local mature trees.
Post a Comment