Dear Editor,

The real story here is the grand hulabaloo made by neighbors who interfered in a private property owners decision to change his landscape. As the author himself states that the tree in question was " on the border of the exceptional tree size ". In other words, it didn't quite qualify. Perhaps another year or two of life and it might have. But why should it be allowed to? The interference with power lines is reason enough for removal, consider also the sunlight reaching the residence, the constant debris on structure and yard, root interference in the landscape, the view of residence AND neighbors. All are valid reasons for removing this out of place tree. This tree was by no means a landmark.

Seattle has a terrific urban forest and under Mayor Greg Nickels hundreds of trees have been added and protected as a City policy.

My point to Mark Schletty is this: lighten up. Let's save the effort for bigger enviromental battles. As he pointed out himself, the only crime being committed was his trespassing!

Why was the tree company evasive? Because they hear this kind of complaint ALL THE TIME! There is always another neighbor protesting their legitimate and legal work.

A conifer shouldn't be topped or mutilated by limb removal, it should be removed. Ask any certified arborist.
Should grand landmark trees be preserved? Yes. Does the City of Seattle have some of the most progressive pro tree policies in the nation? Yes. Does this particular tree mandate such a hulabaloo as to unsurp private property rights? No.

Lee Kelly