Last spring, unannounced to the public, 17 trees were cut down in Copeyon Park.  While admittedly, a couple of the ash trees removed had evidence of some infestation, most of the trees taken down were healthy, and all were basically in the area where a proposed splash pad was set to be installed.  There was a lot of inconsistencies in the official line that they were all taken down because of disease and had been on the chopping block list for years, claims that were roundly refuted in Clear Cutting to the Truth.

Later that year at a Tree Advisory Board meeting, member Tom Coleman in a rare bit of city official candor, said that the trees were removed to accommodate the future installation of the splash pad, a claim that had been denied by many other officials over the course of the year.  Ms. Seelhoff noted that Coleman's assertion of this 'hidden' purpose had been stronger than the minutes attest.


However, relatively unnoticed at the November meeting of the board was an ambitious schedule of removing trees at another city park.  You will note that in the following order of business, there is no reason given as to why the trees are being taken down, and  the rationale used by member Sharon Bradley-Johnson as to why her list of trees (other than the "plain" tree) would be good replacements.

This entry went unnoticed by me and the other elves that contact me whenever they see the City of Ludington doing things furtively or unethically until yesterday, when a concerned local noticed a lot of tree stumps around the Waterfront Park area, pointed it out.  Although many city officials keep track of the concerned locals website on Facebook, none supplied an answer all day.

When this appeared last night, I looked at the area around midnight, and sensed the area looked more 'open' but couldn't really see much of anything because of the darkness.  This morning I noticed a lot of good-widthed stumps, and went to get my photographer this afternoon, and found there were 15 trees chopped down in the marina area, 13 in Waterfront Park, two on City Marina property.  Here are some pictures of the end results:

Unless I am mistaken with the placements of the trees, here's an aerial view of the thirteen cut down in Waterfront Park:

As you may be able to make out from the overhead view, these were flourishing trees, many chosen about 20 years ago to landscape the park with low-maintenance shade trees.  Most of the species of trees planted were also chosen for their disease and infestation resistance, only to be cut down later on by people who believed that Kentucky Coffee Trees and River Birches would make great replacements for them.  

The whimsy of these people, wasting large amounts of tax dollars in order to justify the existence of this unnecessary group and qualify for their version of a merit badge (the designation by the Arbor Day Foundation as a "Tree City"), is an embarrassment for those who want efficiency and accountability to the people in their government.  As I have maintained since the beginning of the Tree Advisory Board:  they were created in order to eliminate healthy trees and replace them with expensive follies.

They haven't disappointed as Ludington's Tree Ax-visory Board.  Here are links to pictures of the healthy stumps of those trees removed:

w1a.jpg    w2a.jpg   w3a.jpg   w4a.jpg   w5a.jpg   w6a.jpg   w7a.jpg   w8a.jpg

v7a.jpg  v6a.jpg   v5a.jpg   v4a.jpg   v3a.jpg   v2a.jpg   v1a.jpg

Views: 831

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Maybe some rich condo owner complained that the  trees blocked their view of the water.  

I would think rather that three trees in a small triangle of grass may soon erupt the concrete.  Fortunately, if one were to ask the Tree Advisory Board for the rationale (which I hope eventually is more included in the Minutes), one might probably get an understandable and rational reasoning.

Further, this kind of previous planting may point out why need for a tree-advisory board is needed, not to criticize who ever planted these trees some 20 years ago, but, rather to question why and to point out that greater understanding of trees and tree-planting may have been learned in the past 20 years.

I not only took pictures of the stumps, I also took 'away' pictures, showing the general area; there was not an endangered sidewalk in any of them.  The overhead shot makes it look like these trees may have been planted close to pavement, they weren't, and one must consider these trees were selected by pragmatists who knew their landscaping nearly 20 years ago.  

I would love to believe the TAB members would keep the public alerted to what they want to do, where they want to do it, how they want to do it, when they want to do it, and most importantly, why they want to do it.  I haven't seen this in the board's minutes and agendas over the last three years of it's existence, at least in timely matter as regards these two park tree clearings.  They do have a list of their preferred trees but not of how they developed these preferences.

Now then with these new pictures showing that the concrete is not affected, this seems like a wasteful shame.  I hope the TAB can provide valid answers.  When we don't even provide sidewalks for pedestrians in other public areas of the city.

The one shown was the tree cut closest to the pavement from the 13 Waterfront Park trees.  Landscapers of twenty years ago surely knew their stuff.  

The one thing that really gets me upset over this and the Copeyon Tree massacre is that these long-standing trees had special significance to me and many others who visit both parks regularly, and even irregularly.  My eldest daughter was married at the Waterfront Park with almost all of the trees cut in the background of her pictures (the ceremony took place in that one semicircle at the southwest of the overhead picture showing the former trees' locations).  Her reception was a picnic held over at Copeyon in the shade of all those former trees.  How do you explain the senseless lumbering to her?

My youngest daughter enjoyed going to the "Barina", what she cutely called the Waterfront Park playground, and it is her shoes that you sometimes see in the 'stump' pictures.  It may come as no surprise that she was not happy with seeing all those trees she grew up with, rested in the shade with, and climbed, reduced to nothing.  

Me, I have my own fond memories of the trees in these parks, and I'm sure that many other folks around town experience some grief or anger at having them removed secretly, and with what appears as a hidden agenda.  

X, Do you know what species of trees were removed?  Also twenty years ago was not that long ago.  It wouls seem that the city should have at least a 50-60+ year investment in trees .. that they should have latest at least that long.  Who did the initial landscaping?

Unfortunately, I can't remember what kind of trees they were, rather I can remember that they were all that you might want from a tree in a public park.  Low maintenance, unobstructive, healthy trees that served their general purpose to make the park look green and clean.  

If I'm not mistaken, the landscaping for the Waterfront Park and Harbor Front Marina was RJM design out of Grand Rapids.  This was before Henderson and Shay.

homeguid.txt

Unless this is a miniature, seedless kentucky Coffee, it could be 80-90 feet high and 50 feet wide in about 25 years, so they could get taller than what was there.  That's why some sources say that Kentuckians have learned to put them alone in a big horse field where their bean doesn't bother city folk.  The good thing is that the pods can be used to make a substitute coffee if times get hard.  Hopefully this is  different species that is proposed.  It would be nice to have more information.

The City planted a small KCT sapling just a bit west of the House of Favors Restaurant last year on Ludington Avenue in the right-of-way.  It was a dumb move, IMHO, because at that age the sex of the KCT will be unknown:  it will flower but not produce pods.  It may never start half the time, in which case it will be a male.  If it starts producing pods, it's a female and will require a lot of maintenance at the location to remove the pods with poisonous, rot-resistant, hard-as-rock peas from the sidewalk and street.  I pass a house with a fully-grown female KCT planted near the sidewalk and the lawn and sidewalk is often messed up with these pods, despite their efforts to keep them in check. 

Planting an immature KCT in a street right-of-way or a frequently used park is almost as smart as planting a horse chestnut there.  Save these species for out-of-the-way applications.

THANK you, again, XLFD, for your insight and research.  At first this seemed like a minor complaint to me, not really being affected at the area, but your points are very valid, and I know how it feels to have to lose many trees that one enjoys in a park.  You would think that after last year's nearly clear-cut in Copeyon park and the social outcry, that at least these trees, if justified in their removal, would have been done on a small removal basis .. not 14 at one time.

While the cutting of 14 seemingly healthy trees may seem like an apocalyptic experience, to be fair, hopefully the Tree Advisory Board brings a lot of experience to the city, and there may have been good reasons for the removal.  At least there is a Board, who hosts meetings that are slated a month in advance, at a time when most working people can attend to make comments.  I have attended a couple of meetings, and found the Committee very welcoming to allow unlimited time for comment and I appreciate the professionalism of Chairman Johnson, and the candor of member Coleman, and the dedication of those willing to give their time to sit monthly and make a formalized effort to go the way that many local communities are moving in order to get these tempting grants which seems to be a requirement of our State.

I am still upset about the cutting of 17 trees in Copeyon park, without notice to the public, about six months before the splashpad was approved (however, the Ludington Daily News announced its approval in August of 2016 when it was not approved until September 2017), as the official minutes state that the matter was to go before further discussion and review "at the next special meeting" which had not been scheduled.  I did appear before the Tree Committee Board to ask "why" were the smaller, apparently healthy trees cut, in Copeyon Park when John Shay and Mike Krauch said they were "all diseased."  I was also very curious as to why these trees were all of a sudden so badly diseased.

Tom Coleman candidly stated that they were cut to make room for the splashpad (in direct opposition to what John Shay and Mike Krauch were defending, he also said that "boxelder" trees are a very strong, long-living tree well suited for a boggy-type area like the flats in Copeyon Park.  Why Shay and Krauch did not just admit that the trees were cut for the splashpad location is a mystery to me, but I suspect it was because I pointed out in April 2017, that the official City Council minutes had not approved the splashpad and the whole-cut took place six months prior.

A bigger point to me is that the splashpad and its location was not well discussed with the public in any official manner.  No rationale was given for any decisions in any official minutes.  The subject appeared only in non-published "notes" (not minutes) of Cemetery, Parks, and Recreation Committee minutes (which meetings were not published on the website in a timely manner), and all meetings were held during times when most of the public could not attend during working hours, until it was "rubber-stamp" approved before one council meeting, September 25, 2017, where the minds of Councilors was seemingly, unanimously agreed before hand, and any comment that public had to make was well-overriden, if even listened to.  I have learned the hard way, that bringing up an opposing view at a Council meeting brings down a heavy and harsh criticism.  Rather than listening to the public's views, it seems some Officials and Councilors take any alternative view as a personal criticism of their hard work.

I believe that if the city wants to include the public in decision making, they should better advertise discussions of issues, and include the public, before making major decisions regarding OUR parks.  To be fair, I believe that some in City Hall understand better, and perhaps are trying to change the transparency of actions by the City and Committee meetings and Communication to the public as a whole.  But in the case of certain trees, it is too late.  Trees cut to their stumps, unlike a bad haircut, do not grow back.

I believe it is the intention of the Tree Advisory Board to better include the public in discussions regarding tree removal and they have asked for volunteers for a tree inventory.  I made a comment in one meeting that it would be nice if the public could be informed when removal of trees could be made (massive or individual removal--as trees and their removal greatly affect the public).

The Tree Advisory Board minutes are posted online where the City Council Minutes are, and their next meeting is usually made at the previous meeting, so a citizen has a month to prepare.  The time is also generally convenient, in the evening, often before a Planning Commission Meeting.

Thanks for what you do Dianne.  I appreciate your time to these meetings and for caring so much for Ludington.  I hope the councilors start respecting your diligence and your comments.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service