Tree trimming OK, but cutting to preserve views is wrong

I read the letter entitled “Not all trees provide value.” (May 23 Reporter) I believe that many of the author’s points are covered in Issaquah’s current tree ordinance, which I hope will still contain these clauses when it is revised. Diseased trees can be cut, and I would think so would inappropriate trees, as long as they are replaced with more appropriate trees. Where the author and I really part company is in her statement that one of the “considerations for keeping or planting trees ... (is) not obscuring views.”

June 5, 2008 1:06 am

I read the letter entitled “Not all trees provide value.” (May 23 Reporter) I believe that many of the author’s points are covered in Issaquah’s current tree ordinance, which I hope will still contain these clauses when it is revised. Diseased trees can be cut, and I would think so would inappropriate trees, as long as they are replaced with more appropriate trees. Where the author and I really part company is in her statement that one of the “considerations for keeping or planting trees … (is) not obscuring views.”

The definition of view is “that which is seen or beheld.” For example, I have a lovely view of some rhododendrons out one side of my yard. A friend in a city apartment jokes about her “great” view of a concrete wall out her kitchen window. Neither view has anything to do with trees “obscuring” anything. Trimming a tree for visibility safety or signage is an appropriate consideration for the city; trying to change one view to a realtor’s definition of “view” is NOT. No trees should be sacrificed for such a trivial reason.

-Karen Janes

Issaquah