[Summit] SNA position on fountain vs. trees

Thu Jul 1 10:50:44 UTC 2010

"If so, may I suggest that we have a standard for the Subject line to 
alert us to key notices from the association so that we are certain to 
read it."

Who on the SNA will determine what's a "key notice"? Why is one issue more important than another? Maybe a key notice for you might not be the same one for me? I'm much more concerned about crime than trees. Will the person/people on the SNA who decide these "key notices" be subjected to the same evisceration we've seen over the last week or so? Who will take that job now? 

I'm not involved with the SNA, but thanks to all of this, City Hall will most likely never do anything for this neighborhood again. That affects all of us who live here, involved or not. People in government have long memories. 

How many cumulative hours have been devoted to emails on this? 100 hours or more? It might be easier to just come to a meeting once a month. That way, no one on here can claim they weren't aware of any "key notices". 

--- On Wed, 6/30/10, Amanda Woodward <awoodward7 at verizon.net> wrote:

From: Amanda Woodward <awoodward7 at verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [Summit] SNA position on fountain vs. trees
To: summit at sna.providence.ri.us
Date: Wednesday, June 30, 2010, 8:56 AM

I think my frustration around the Lippit Park project (vs the fountain project) is that we are discussing it 8 trees too late.

The SNA has done a very good job of ensuring we are tuned into the actions in our neighborhood such as the efforts to revitalize Main Street.  As a neighborhood, we count on the association to alert us on city actions that will affect us so that we have an opportunity to have input.  I am not clear why this has not surfaced before the trees were actually cut.  If our neighborhood had been engaged then why hasn't there been some communications / reporting back to the group.  

Maybe there has and it is getting lost in the daily deluge of casual conversations.  If so, may I suggest that we have a standard for the Subject line to alert us to key notices from the association so that we are certain to read it.  If not, then I ask for better communications from the group - nothing elaborate, even if it is just a bunch of links to more information.

I know I fell into a sense of being informed because Jesse has been keeping us well apprised of his project's progess which is clearly a subset of the larger project.

On the subject of the trees - I am uneasy that we might be swayed by the prospect of 'newer and better' trees at the cost of 30 year old trees that were probably admired as grand and beautiful trees prior to these discussions.  A new 10' tree does not provide any usable shade for at least 5 years.  Please carefully consider whether the 'better' version really has that much going for it to sacrifce this lush, cool canopy.  And, who knows, 30 years from now the new forester will have a better list of 'eco-responsible' trees that negate the current list and history will repeat itself. 

Can't we just enjoy what we have and spend the money on the rest of the park?  I would much rather see it spent on a picnic areas, better playground area, and proper care of the current vegitation.  This is a lot of money and it is all of ours' hard earned money.  If it was coming directly out of your pocket, is this really what you would want to do.

From: Carol Cancro <ccancro at cox.net>
To: Melissa Vanzetti <msvanzetti at yahoo.com>; summit at sna.providence.ri.us; Amanda Woodward <awoodward7 at verizon.net>
Sent: Tue, June 29, 2010 5:28:26 PM
Subject: SNA position on fountain vs. trees

I wasn't aware that SNA had not taken a position on the fountain/trees issue, and would be surprised if most neighbors understand that SNA does not support tree removal.  (I thought the fountain project was the principal active issue for SNA at present.)

For the long-term viability of SNA, I believe it will be critical to communicate the distinction between the association and the fountain project.  Ideally, the board could draft a position statement in time for tomorrow's meeting.  That may not be a realistic goal... 

Carol C.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Melissa Vanzetti 
To: summit at sna.providence.ri.us ; Amanda Woodward 
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Summit] Norway maples as "invasive" trees

I'd like to re-phrase what I originally stated. Just as I don't appreciate neighbors speaking for me as a board member and officer of the SNA, I shouldn't speak for other board members. What I mean to say is I am a board member and I am against the removal of trees. Other board members have to speak for themselves. The SNA has yet to release a formal statement on the trees/fountain issue but nowhere has it been documented that the SNA "100% supported the removal of the trees".

Best,
Melissa

--- On Tue, 6/29/10, Melissa Vanzetti <msvanzetti at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Melissa Vanzetti <msvanzetti at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Summit] Norway maples as "invasive" trees
To: summit at sna.providence.ri.us, "Amanda Woodward" <awoodward7 at verizon.net>
Cc: "Rory Coniglione" <blackstonecontrols at verizon.net>
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2010, 2:24 PM

I have resisted the urge to respond to the numerous negative and blame-game emails going around but I can't sit quietly anymore. Amanda - you are completely and totally incorrect in stating: "the SNA 100% supported the removal of trees". While the SNA has yet to come out with a formal statement - there are board members INCLUDING MYSELF - that are actually 100% against the removal of the trees. 

The SNA is made up of volunteers who work so tirelessly for our neighbors. We have full-time jobs and families and many other professional and personal commitments - yet we find time to come together to work on behalf of our neighbors - to make our community a better place. I invite you to come see what we do and get involved with us instead of sending negative and incorrect emails making assumptions and accusations. I have sat by and let these emails go - but I have to speak up and defend my neighborhood association..

Your neighbor,
Melissa

--- On Tue, 6/29/10, Amanda Woodward <awoodward7 at verizon.net> wrote:

From: Amanda Woodward <awoodward7 at verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [Summit] Norway maples as "invasive" trees
To: summit at sna.providence.ri.us
Cc: "Rory Coniglione" <blackstonecontrols at verizon.net>
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2010, 1:14 PM

#yiv372846716 #yiv740789995 #yiv1970530869 DIV {
MARGIN:0px;}

Again, why do the trees have to go to make the fountain run?

I am very disappointed after reading the article that the SNA 100% supported the removal of trees.  We can debate the role of the SNA, but the bottom line is that the neighborhood expects them to represent us.  I can say that not a single neighbor of mine agrees with the removal of the trees, so there is a disconcerting disconnect.  To repeat a previous email - this is a neighborhood that takes embaces Arbor Day - need we say more?!

I signed the petition for the fountain with the understanding that I was supporting the updating of the pump and plumbing only.  No way did I imagine I was supporting what I consider the worst possible situation.  For me, the trees 'make' the park.  I am satisfied with the fountain simply being a lovely folley without running water, amongst the ring of trees which I personally consider more inviting on a hot summer day than a scorching exposed area. 

Secondly, I signed the petition after considerable reflection as to whether I thought a fountain was frivilous during tough times.  I convinced myself that the canopy aided enough in reducing evaporation to justify a running fountain to help foster the contraction of social interaction back into the community ... worth the price of frivilous water usage.

This is not really a question of fountain vs trees.  It is a question of whether someone wants grass rather than the interest of an undulating root fabric along the ground.  It is not required to remove the trees in order to repair the fountain.  

There is plenty of 'grass' in the park that is much enjoyed, no need for more.

(PS - Jesse is a well spoken and thorough person - I write the above statements about the petition assuming he was absolutely correct about his assessment and in no way intended to be misleading.  I understand that others have influenced the plan since the initial petition.  I apologize if I have missed something telling in earlier emails, but I came in on the 'trees' emails when the discussion was about visability at the corners and did not realize what the prominant situation was until I saw the park last weekend.)

From: Robert Mathiesen <rmath13 at gmail.com>
To: Jeffrey Cavanaugh <jeff at cavanaugh.org>
Cc: Summit Neighborhood <Summit at sna.providence.ri.us>
Sent: Mon, June 28, 2010 12:38:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Summit] Norway maples as "invasive" trees

I suppose that the same neighborhood pressure that led the city to restore the fountain could lead the city to maintain it and keep it flowing.  Why not?  That's how things work in most communities.  

Speaking just for myself, I spent my teen years living a few blocks between two free-flowing city-maintained fountains (in another part of the country), so I regard such fountains as one of the foremost amenities of city life.  To
 me, personally, it is worth the loss of a couple of dozen trees.  Your "mileage" may vary, of course, and that's fine . . .  But there's no single obviously best solution to this controversy. 
- Show quoted text -

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Jeffrey Cavanaugh <jeff at cavanaugh.org> wrote:

I don't know if anyone has yet pointed out that this controversey made the front page of the projo this weekend!

It would seem to me that the invasive nature of the trees is irrelevant. They have been there for over 30 years and widely planted elsewhere so that ship has sailed.  I think it comes down to preference and the relative value of different courses of aciton.  

First, I think, one needs to decide the value of those trees vs the value of the fountain.  Keeping in mind there are lots of other significant trees in the park.

Second, one needs to evaluate how much of a tradeoff there really is between trees and fountain - it seems some of the trees being removed are due to stylistic preferences and are not critical for the fountain restoration or for protecting the pipes going forward.

Finally, something that has not been discussed much (I think), is the value of the trees vs fountain in 5, 10 or 15 years?  I am concerned about the reasons given in the Projo for the original shutting down of the fountain which was expense of running it.  This is a classic pattern in RI public works that something is built or lovingly restored and no money is set aside ot maintain the thing.  What assurance do we have, assuming we are willing to trade some trees for a fountain, that we will have a working fountain in 3 years, 8 years or 15 years?  I hate to be cynical, but I've seen this sort of thing before and I have very high doubts that the fountain will still be running in 10 years.  Very high doubts indeed.  Because if there's no commitment to KEEPING the fountain running, we could probably have it broken up and hauled away and some trees and grass planted in its place for  a lot less than
 $180,000.  If this question has already been addressed, I apologize, the volume of e-mail has been substantial and difficult to keep up with even with laptop, desktop, home access, work access and iphone access!

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Coryndon Luxmoore <coryndon at luxmoore.com> wrote:

There have been an number of comments and discussions in the ProJo comments and in the Parks presentation a few weeks back regarding the "invasive" nature of the Norway maples but little in the way of details about what that means.  

The US Forest service recommends that they should not be planted but I cannot find any recommendations about what to do with existing plants given that they were broadly used as city trees for many decades. 

I found few sites that discuss the tree and its impacts:
- http://www.treecanada.ca/tree-killers/norway-maple.htm
- http://www.invasive.org/species/subject.cfm?sub=3002 (Listed as a MA noxious weed)

--C

--------------------------------------------
Coryndon Luxmoore
Interaction Designer

coryndon (at) luxmoore (dot) com
---------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Summit mailing list
Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
http://mail.sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/

_______________________________________________
Summit mailing list
Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
http://mail.sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Summit mailing list
Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
http://mail.sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/

_______________________________________________
Summit mailing list
Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
http://mail.sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Summit mailing list
Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
http://mail.sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sna.providence.ri.us/pipermail/summit_sna.providence.ri.us/attachments/20100701/c3011d05/attachment.htm>