The 100-year-old non-native tree in a Port Angeles city park and its attendant problems is drawing a lot of publicity.
Let me see if I have this correctly: the roots of a tree in a public park are causing damage to a nearby property inhabited by humans.
It is also causing that resident’s driveway to be unpassable.
The tree has been examined by an arborist and he has rendered an opinion regarding removal. The City Council has determined that removal of the tree is an administrative decision.
Now enter some environmental extremists, a much-too-charitable term for those that push their “religion” of favoring a tree over the lifestyle of human beings.
Port Angeles city government should be very relieved at this point that this homeowner has, apparently, been exceedingly patient and tolerant, because the city certainly has some financial liability for damage caused to his or her property by this tree.
However, even removal of this tree will not undo the damage already done.
The squeaky wheel sometimes gets the oil, but sometimes a squeaky wheel needs a wire brush taken to it, in this case in the form of some common sense and reality.
Even the Port Angeles mayor, Sissi Bruch, a self-described “tree person,” apparently shares the “religion” with these environmental extremists.
By the way, we are home to many trees.
Why is there any dithering over this no-brainer?
Richard H. Lohrman,
Sequim