[Summit] Norway maples as "invasive" trees

Tue Jun 29 15:10:34 UTC 2010

Melissa
I deeply apologize for offending you.  I very much appreciate that this is a volunteer position and, after reading your postion below, appreciate that you represent a portion of the neighborhood's view on the matter.

However, the article very clearly stated that the SNA is supportive of the removal of all the trees.  In my shock over the situation, I definitely jumped to the conclusion that it was 100% supported by the tone fo the statement and that was not appropriate.  Exerpt below from the ProJo:

http://www.projo.com/news/content/LIPPITT_PARK_TREES_06-26-10_MDJ04BH_v31.175e030.html

"But before work starts on the fountain, the city must clear most of the Norway maple trees planted in the late 1970s around the fountain. 
According to Summit Neighborhood Association president George Schietinger, the trees are an invasive species that tend to dominate native trees, were not part of the original landscaping design of the park, and have a root structure at or near ground level, which makes it hard for grass to grow in the park and causes damage to the pavement around the fountain. 
Schietinger says the association supports the city’s position, although it would also not object to preserving some of the trees.
“Our issue was getting the fountain running,” he said Friday. “It will look different, but I think the park will be better, in the sense that it will finally have a working fountain, and that will make a huge difference.”"

This is contrary to your statement below.

If the SNA held a different position, it should have very strongly made that clear.  It appears that your position is being misrepresented.

Something of this significance could have quickly and easily been litmus tested with an email questionaire.  So, I still hold my position that I am disappointed by the representation.

________________________________
From: Melissa Vanzetti <msvanzetti at yahoo.com>
To: summit at sna.providence.ri.us; Amanda Woodward <awoodward7 at verizon.net>
Cc: Rory Coniglione <blackstonecontrols at verizon.net>
Sent: Tue, June 29, 2010 10:24:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Summit] Norway maples as "invasive" trees

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
>
>
>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/ 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sna.providence.ri.us/pipermail/summit_sna.providence.ri.us/attachments/20100629/1ece9949/attachment.htm>