The city needs that tree for heat in their new energy system. Fort George Park is probably next

What a bunch of lame excuses for poor civic pride. I think the city owes Ted a new tree and a rebate for the tree he originally paid for.

I bet it all boils down the the recent cuts to the parks department and thus they cut out the trees and then don’t have to water (maintenance) the area.

In cities like Medicine Hat and Lethbridge where they have well established downtown trees it sets the whole perception of their downtown. The difference is one between a real city, and a city run by incompetents with little civic pride IMO.

I just “travelled” the streets of downtown PG via Google Streetview which shows the state of the union of about 2 years ago when the camera travelled the streets of PG.

The lower trunk of the tree in front of the generator was still there at the time. The state of the trees at the time was rather non-uniform to say the least. All different sizes. A few had guards around them, most did not. Some were quite large, in particular one on Brunswick on the northwest corner of second. On the other side, there were puny ones next to the Northern’s parking lot. A proper street tree planting program should never even consider planting such small caliper trees, in my opinion.

The trees planted on Victoria from about the White Spot going south seem to be doing particularly well. Of course, they are planted in such a way that they take over much too much of the sidewalk so that if that if people were actually using the sidewalk to walk to any degree, there would be congestion each time one walked around a tree.

The trees at the gateway seem to be doing reasonably well.

I never considered the City’s approach to downtown tree planting to be a serious one. Taking stock a decade or so after it started I would say it has been no more than 50% successful. I find that to be unacceptable and most certainly the DBIA should be asking for its money back.

So, all in all, another pothole problem having had its attention drawn to it.

I have noticed trees in the downtown with branches ripped off, bark ripped off and people parking too close to trees and shrubs. So many people do not appreciate the beauty of a tree or shrub in the downtown core.
I am assuming city workers on the street are just following orders, but managers and planners are probably tired of sinking money into trees that end up being abused and mistreated!
I hear Mr. Moffat though. If he paid for the tree, then he should have had some say in it. Was the tree damaged beyond repair, bad location, overgrown?

They just cut down a big ole cottonwood tree in a parking lot near 2nd avenue and the sprott shaw building. I guess the tree wasn’t paying the fees? So it appears that Pg is anti Green after all.

They also took down 3 old elm trees on Vancouver and sixth. The contractor suggested that the trees would not last much longer than 10 to 15 years.

Interesting thing is that the apartment building across the street still has the elms standing there.

The City permitting department “screwed up” on this one big time. They really do not care!!!

It is a continuing mindset that is opposite to the whole notion of civic pride. How we are to work with that kind of attitude of protecting their backsides at every move is really beyond me.

“The difference is one between a real city, and a city run by incompetents with little civic pride IMO.”

The evidence is visible from one end of the city to the other! It’s been neglected for decades.

BTW, how about running the misfit retards out of town, the ones that keep damaging public property (trees), rather than throwing in the towel by removing the trees?

Once again, the City is caught in a hard spot, partially due to their own bad planning. Do they accept the liability of a (maybe) rotten tree falling on a home or business or do they remove it entirely?

LOL …. you make me laugh JB …. these trees are not big enough to hurt a baby in a baby carriage if it was being pushed near the tree……

you would think a tree worth between $2700 and $3500 would be a full, mature and healthy tree, regularly watered and well cared for. In my opinion Mr. Moffat deserves to get his money back. Communications between DBIA and the City need improving especially when it comes to policy changes that may negatively impact downtown’s esthetics or and individual property owner’s contribution to DT beautification. Sounds like a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.

https://plus.google.com/photos/108416575009609656145/albums/5766542951238190769#photos/108416575009609656145/albums/5766542951238190769

The above takes you to a page with images from other communities – Red Deer, Lethbridge, Kamloops, Kelowna, Penticton, etc. – plus some of the “better” parts of downtown PG …. I have not included those trees on Brunswick next to the Northern ….. can do … but will need a magnifying glass …. LOL

gus: “LOL …. you make me laugh JB …. these trees are not big enough to hurt a baby in a baby carriage if it was being pushed near the tree……”

Thanks once again for the comment, I was more thinking about bigger trees. But for ones like the one pictured, they are commonly targetted for vandalism, especially in the downtown. I have seen them with broken branches and pushed over entirely.

“Communications between DBIA and the City need improving”

Yu got that right ….. it can start with an understanding that if the City collects money from a property owner or association to provide a product or service, that like any other business transaction, the purchaser has a right to assess whether the value for money has been provided. In addition, some type of guarantee.

THAT does not exist in this City and probably no other City in exactly that fashion. However, some semblance of that should exsit.

Sort of like the duty of the City to maintan roads. We pay taxes to hire people to do a proper job and use those taxes to give us the best value for money possible. If that cannot be done, we have a perfect right to expect an explanation of why that cannot be done.

In fact, the core review that is going on right now has a duty to the citizens of this community NOT the Council, to explain the state of the union.

Asking what services we are williing to pay more for and which ones we don’t need to the level we have now is not addressing the key purpose of the core review.

We are being given the run around by City Hall at every turn. It is high time it stopped!

He didn’t pay $2,700 or $3,500 for the “tree”, let’s get real! The fee was for the whole job, the tree, the preparation of the sidewalk and concrete, the metal grating, the labour and so forth.

A local plantland store has a huge selection (in two different locations) of suitable trees of different species for as little as starting at a $120 bucks, up to twice that price for large 10-12 foot burr oaks, for instance.

Burr oak is extremely tough, thriving in any climate with very little care. Perhaps the city should have a look at those.

The local merchants should have no option when it comes to downtown beautification and uniformity standards. The trees MUST be replaced, nobody can opt out! The cost of replacing a tree amounts to less than 10% of the figures quoted above!

Let’s not make up stories! How does cementing in places where there were trees jive with an appeal by Green for input and ideas on how to make the city have a better appearance?

Get a backbone and stand up for the city!

If the DBIA had the trees planted then the request for removal needs to come from them. Its a comnmunity plan why should one owner have the say what happens on his/her street.

Its a great feeling when driving the streets of South Fort Gorge with all the hughe trees. It binds the community. Trees play a such a great part in the image of that community. Pinewood sub is another area that looks mature and balance with all the trees that were planted many years ago. Some people are just blind when it comes to community vision.
Cheers

“A local plantland store has a huge selection (in two different locations) of suitable trees of different species for as little as starting at a $120 bucks”

Prince Geroge …. what you write is partially true.

Here is how it works in the real world of commercial landscaping contracting. I am not familiar with current pricing, but do have a reasonable handle of the part the landscape contractor plays.

In this case, the City chooses to play the landscape contractor and must do so to its fullest extent.

When someone gets a tree planted on private property downtown, let us say in a location like the old BMO building on third, or even the Birch trees next to the CIBC building, which I believe to be on their property, a proper contract would include.

1. preparation of the spot where the tree will be placed, whether that is in an existing paved area or an exposed soil area.

2. selecting a tree which is suited to urban downtown conditions and a ciliper (stem diameter) suitable to the condition as well

3. planting that tree with the appropriate soil

4. securing that tree with guy wires in 3 direction and, if that is not possible, some other way of ensuring the same thing.

5. providing a metal or some similar protection to the tree to a reasonable height to prevent at least accidental damage. You will see that on some of the trees downtown, but considerably less than 50%

6. watering and fertilizing and trimming the tree for a full one year cycle. If the tree is damaged or dies through some other method though no fault of the owner (in the case of street trees that would mean providing reasonable security for the conditions in which the tree finds itself) the tree will be replaced at no cost to the owner and the one year cycle starts anew.

That is abbout it in a nutshell.

Now you can see why a tree costs $3000 and more.

In my personal opinion, a tree of less than 3″ in diameter should never be planted in an urban downtown setting. A total waste of time and money.

“…in front of the Generator Cabaret. “It turns out, the trees were located right in front of the spot where people are ‘thrown out’ of that club, so the trees were repeatedly being damaged. So in that case the property owners asked if we would remove the trees.”

So they were throwing out the drunks and witnessed that the drunkards were damaging the trees while being tossed out? And the bouncer didn’t have a cell phone to call the cops? Why didn’t they throw the misfits out through the back door into the back alley by the dumpsters?

The ‘solution’ is to give in to the scums and remove the trees and the city actually agreed to and approved this chickening out???

Gus, your post of 9:47 am hits the nail on the head!

BTW, if you walk downtown you may still see some pavers around some of the trees which have subsided toward the centre of the planting opening. Since there is no proper border at the edge which would prevent that, anyone knowledgeable in that type of construction detail would have known from the start that this was an ongoing maintenance item.

PG: “And the bouncer didn’t have a cell phone to call the cops?”

Let’s say the police had the resources to come out to a tree vandalism call. By the time they got there, the drunks would have long moved on.

Yes, that cabaret issue, Prince George, is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard.

Gee, cars keep hitting the stop sign at a specific intersection … so we’ll just remove the stop sign and it won’t get knocked down again.

PG: “The ‘solution’ is to give in to the scums and remove the trees and the city actually agreed to and approved this chickening out??? “

The other option is to keep replacing damaged trees at taxpayer expense, over and over again. I for one am not in favour of that.

Gus: “Gee, cars keep hitting the stop sign at a specific intersection …so we’ll just remove the stop sign and it won’t get knocked down again.”

A stop sign is necessary. A tree is not. Do I really need to point this out?

I have noticed trees being taken down at the cemetary too.

Trees are not necessary! Wow! Thank you for enlightening us about that! So we can’t have something which is not necessary, according to you? How about having something like a tree for shade, for beautification of a street? How do the other cities manage to have trees and why do they have something as unnecessary as that?

You have way too much sympathy for vandals, it seems to me. I say arrest them and charge them with property damage and lock them up in jail if they can’t pay a hefty fine!

The police station is very close to the downtown and soon it will be even closer! It’s not reasonable to suggest that the police won’t be able to attend quickly and make arrests. How about giving the RCMP an opportunity by calling them while taking pictures of the vandals? And, finally, it is not just a tree vandalism issue (no use to belittle the issue) but it is damage to public property! It’s the principle of the matter! We do have laws and we pride ourselves on having a lawful society! Why let the scums have their waY?

Glad you are not in charge!

“A stop sign is necessary. A tree is not. Do I really need to point this out?”

Yes, you actually do need to point that out.

There are many section in part of Victoria, for instance, that do not have stop signs internal to smaller subdivisions. For instance, off Edgelow Street here is a subdivision hich has four internal T intersections that have no stop signs. I can post pictures of those and others, but that would, I am sure, be a waste of time. The simple rule is, the same as in Belgium, slow edown at an intersection, look to the right as well as the left. If there is a vehicle coming fro the right, stop and allow that vehicle to continue on its path since it has the “right of way”.

Of course, in PG people typically don’t even follow that virtually international rule nor the rule to stop at a stop sign. I have had two people hit me in PG because they did not stop at a stop sign. It is the only place that has ever happened to me.

It is highly likely that when a person hits a stop sign, they were not planning to stop. ;-)

“I have noticed trees being taken down at the cemetary too.”

they could be rotten and fall on a grave and kill someone ….

JB …. travel much, do you?

Lol gus. I hope you didn’t hurt yourself stretching with that post at 2:41.

Methinks someone who is quick to accuse those of ‘shooting from the hip’ was just caught themselves and was trying to recover. Don’t worry, it’s all good. ;-)

PG: “Trees are not necessary! Wow! Thank you for enlightening us about that! So we can’t have something which is not necessary, according to you? How about having something like a tree for shade, for beautification of a street? How do the other cities manage to have trees and why do they have something as unnecessary as that?”

Calm yourself down for a second and breathe. I’m only saying that a tree that it commonly targetted by vandals doesn’t need to be there. Maybe you think we should hire security guards for each one?

PG: “I say arrest them and charge them with property damage and lock them up in jail if they can’t pay a hefty fine!”

I agree. If you can catch them… which is almost impossible.

Nothing is stretching it about Victoria.

Was just there about a month ago for a few days and did a double take because I had never noticed it before.

Here I go again, stretching the limits of undermining assumptions of those who cannot think objectively and get totally frustrated when asked to settle in the gray area between white and black. ;-)

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Replacing+stops+with+yields+unprecedented+expert/6550768/story.html

Very timely article from May 2012…

“Beaconsfield’s plan to replace 14 stop signs with yield signs in Beacon Hill is a relatively unprecedented plan for a residential neighbourhood,

“Gervais told the residents that more than 110 out of 420 ‘T’ intersections in Beaconsfield have no signage and, that studies have found that speeds are lower on Beaconsfield streets that have no stop signs. He indicated that these results are in line with other Canadian and United States studies.”

But hey, JB, I know that you will never sway from your opinion that stop signs are necessary ……

Hey, it wasn’t me who brought up stop signs in a story about trees.

JB:”Maybe you think we should hire security guards for each one? ”

There you go again! I think it’s YOU who needs to take a deep breath! Like I said before: Throw the misfit morons head first out into the back alley instead of out the front door where they take their drunken frustration out on our public property!

Keep replacing any trees which are damaged, grow them in the city greenhouse. That way they won’t cost more than fifty bucks each, tops! It’s not more than what it costs to fill one large pothole.

The whole story is based on the obvious misinformation that it costs close to three grand to replace a tree!

It’s not true! The downtown needs more security cameras – that way it’s easy to go after the anti-social elements which think nothing of destroying other peoples’ property!

If the same scum which destroys a tree would key YOUR car to the tune of a thousand dollar repair bill YOU would ask that the RCMP go and try to catch the idiot that did it!

Well, I demand that the RCMP try to catch the destroyer of public property with the same intensity and dedication!

PG: “There you go again! I think it’s YOU who needs to take a deep breath! Like I said before: Throw the misfit morons head first out into the back alley instead of out the front door where they take their drunken frustration out on our public property!”

Are you the owner of the Generator? Do you bounce there? If you are either of these, it would be quite easy to implement your fine suggestions. Otherwise, it’s just talk.

PG: “Keep replacing any trees which are damaged, grow them in the city greenhouse. That way they won’t cost more than fifty bucks each, tops!”

See gus’s post (10:13 am) about the real costs of replacing trees. You clearly have a misunderstanding of how that works.

PG: “It’s not true! The downtown needs more security cameras”

George Orwell might not agree.

“If the same scum which destroys a tree would key YOUR car to the tune of a thousand dollar repair bill YOU would ask that the RCMP go and try to catch the idiot that did it!”

What? I would file a police report and go to ICBC if that unfortunate event occurred. The RCMP would have no chance of catching whoever did it. They would likely too busy solving all the murders and other such serious crimes to worry about who keyed my car.

As I said earlier, calm down… you’re gonna blow a gasket.

It is my understanding trees are removed when they are dead or deseased. How would any of us know if they are deseased? Black knot for example on a May Day is very contagious and hard to spot when all the leaves are out. Once established it is near impossible to erradicate. Also damaged is caused by mowers. “ACCIDENTLY”… If the damage causes the tree to die a slow death then why not remove it. An ugly dying tree is more of an eyesore than anything else. I am sure the city workers are not all brain dead. I am sure most know what they are doing. But some of us just have to blame.

Gus, this whole story is about REPLACING a tree in an existing location rather than filling the already prepared location in with concrete.

JB refers me to your post of 10:13 am. Fine. Your post is about the whole nine yards, preparing a location from scratch, etc. etc.

Look at the pictures at the very top of the story. It will NOT cost $3,000 dollars to REPLACE just the tree! All they have to do is purchase the tree and bring it to the site where the other tree was growing.
Remove the grating, the old tree, dig down far enough, scatter some bone meal, insert the new tree, backfill the soil, water.

All the other costs have been paid for at the time of the initial site construction and annual maintance of the NEW tree will not cost one cent more than what was going to be spent anyways on that location, as if the other tree was still there, like watering and fertilizing.

The story is about replacing trees in an existing location, not about creating a
completely new site with all the associated
costs.

Alright, JB, the whole project on Third Avenue cost three million, including new sidewalks, lights, landscaping, not necessary trees, etc.

Let’s just gradually ‘improve’ on the original expensive project by NOT replacing trees and filling the sites in with concrete.

You win.

I am now totally confused by this whole story. I took a drive downtown tonight and found that the Generator has all the trees back in that were asked to be removed. I saw no obvious trees removed at the Northern. There were numerous trees downtown that were repalced by tall, skinny trees (sorry folks, don’t know the type of trees they are but it is easy to tell them from the ones the City used to plant).

So, I really don’t know what the DBIA nd Viola are talking about.

If the trees are still there (or have been replaced) – who cares what they are talking about? Since I shop at the Northern I will go one of these days and check out the story myself. Has anybody called William Shatner and the *Weird or What* show producers to look into a making a Hidden Mystery Trees Conspiracy
show about downtown PG?