By Erica C. Barnett
UPDATE: On Monday morning, police intervened as protesters attempted to block construction at the site. According to the Instagram account PhotogSteve81, posting at about 10:15 Monday morning, “arrests are being made” at the site. Video posted by the account showed protesters skirmishing with police officers and a man and woman lying on the ground, surrounded by police.
Erich Armbruster, of Ashworth Homes, told PubliCola that protesters showed up at the site last night and occupied an area behind a fence set up by the Seattle Department of Transportation; at some point, one broke onto the property itself and refused to leave until police arrived last night. This morning, protesters returned and re-occupied the site as well as the street in front of the property, with at least one person lying down in the street and refusing to leave, while others stood inside the fencing itself. Police came out and attempted to deescalate, eventually arresting at least one protester.
Look back for more updates later today.
Original story follows:
On February 9, several dozen people gathered outside a construction site in northeast Seattle to rally around a large Western red cedar tree, which is slated for removal as part of a new development that will replace a one-story bungalow with four new townhouses. The city had recently posted a notice that the tree could come down as February 10, so neighbors who wanted to save the tree scrambled to respond.
“We were shocked because it was too close [in time],” said Saraswati Sunindyo, who lives down the street. “We didn’t have enough time to do much of anything.”
Tree Action Seattle, a group that has pushed for revisions to Seattle’s tree ordinance that would make it harder to remove trees for development, quickly got to work, organizing the rally and creating an action page for the tree, which is located just off busy NE 65th Street, between two apartment buildings and across the street from a drive-through coffee stand.
Formerly one of several anonymous large trees on the block, the cedar now had a name—Grandma Brooks’ Cedar—and a backstory: According to Tree Action Seattle, the previous homeowner, Barbara Brooks, “lovingly cared for” and “cherished” the tree for for more than 70 years. “On hot summer days, she would carry a bucket of water to the tree to water it,” according to the website, and even swept the driveway of the neighboring apartment complex until she was almost 90.
When the apartment complex owner offered to buy her house, the site continues, Brooks refused, because he said his plans would require cutting down the tree. “Barbara passed away at 103, and requested her family only sell the property to a buyer that would preserve the tree.”
According to Tree Action, Legacy Capital Partners, the real estate firm brokered the deal, “offered to save the tree,” but “immediately filed plans to remove the cedar” once the land was in their hands. A representative from Legacy did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and the owner of the apartment building did not return a call last week.
According to Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections spokesman Bryan Stevens, developers are allowed to remove “Tier 2” trees—those with a diameter of 24 inches or more—if retaining the tree would reduce the amount of developable land on a lot to less than 85 percent of its total area. Anyone who removes a tree for development must replace the tree with a tree or trees that will result in a similar or greater tree canopy once they mature.
Those trees, however, will take a long time to grow to full height—longer than many of the people mourning the loss of the cedar will be alive.
“The whole neighborhood really loves the tree,” Sunindyo said. There are other Western red cedars in the area, she acknowledged, but “they’re not as big as that one. My kids grew up with that tree. A neighbor who is 70 years old said, ‘When I was little, it was already big.’ So everyone is attached to that tree.”
Not everyone.
“Mom hated that tree,” said Beverly Brooks, who grew up in the house and lived with her mother for the last seven years of her life. “My mother never took buckets of water to water the tree. She was 101, not 103, [when she died], and she never told any neighbor that she loved that tree. We all hated that tree.”
As for protesters’ claims that their family told Legacy they had to keep the tree in place, Beverly said, “We never said anything to anybody about that tree.”
PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.
“Our mother hated that tree,” Beverly’s sister Barbara confirmed. “It’s a huge tree, and it sheds all the time.” Her mother maintained the tree to the best of her ability, removing piles of needles from the roof, gutters, and sidewalk, but she certainly didn’t “cherish” or “lovingly care for” it, the sisters said.
“My mom would cut back the branches and clean it up just constantly,” Barbara said. “We didn’t have a lot of money growing up. Mom always said, ‘If I could afford to get rid of this tree, I would.'”
“That tree was a burden to my mom for years and years,” Beverly said. Eventually, it became her burden as well. For 30 years, into her 70s, Beverly climbed up on the roof to remove needles from the house and gutters, then cleared the sidewalk. “I didn’t want anybody to fall and get hurt,” she said. In all that time, “Not one of the neighbors asked if they could help or nothing. They saw me up on the roof and every man turned the other way.”
“They call my mom ‘Grandma Brooks.’ I don’t like that,” Beverly added. “Her name was Mrs. Brooks. She wasn’t a grandma to any of them.”
Both sisters recall that a neighbor across the street told their mother she needed to put a covenant on the property so that any future buyer would have to keep the tree, but their mother said no. They were surprised at the vitriol the new owner, Legacy, has received for their plans to remove the tree. “In our minds, we just thought ‘let’s get rid of it’ because it’s going to cause the next people problems,” Barbara said.
Today, the Brooks’ house is gone, reduced to a pile of rubble. After the city received an anonymous complaint about potential groundwater pollution from asbestos, the new owner, Ashworth Homes, stopped demolition to do a second asbestos remediation on what’s left of the house, stopping work on the project.
Remnants from the recent protest, including a circle of rose petals surrounded by a wreath of cedar boughs, remained visible on the ground as of last week. The tree, which towers over the three-story apartment complex next door, is now surrounded by protective fencing that neighbors have festooned with signs reading “SAVE THIS TREE!!!” and “MAKE AMERICA AN ENDLESS EXPANSE OF OLD-GROWTH FOREST WITH NO CERTAIN BORDERS AGAIN.”
There is no old-growth forest remaining in Seattle neighborhoods, although isolated old-growth trees can be found in a few local parks. Western red cedars like the one in the Brooks’ former yard take about 50 years to reach their mature height of 80 feet or more, and were part of the landscaping planted to replace the old-growth forest that was destroyed to develop single-family neighborhoods across what is now Seattle.
Tree Action Seattle argues that it would be a simple thing to keep the tree in place and redesign the site plan, by shifting around the buildings and converting two of the four proposed garage spaces into surface parking spots. “I showed the plan to two architects,” Tree Action’s Sandy Shettler said over email. “One of them laughed and said there are so many ways to design the site with the same amount of housing around this tree you’d have to go out of your way to remove it.”
Ashworth Homes president Erich Armbruster agrees it might be technically possible to keep the tree–but not on the site plan he purchased the plans for the property based on a layout that has more value because of the size and floor plans of the homes that can be built there, including garages and more usable ground-floor space than Tree Action’s proposed site plan would allow.
“Had I been presented that plan, presuming it was possible, might I have purchased it? Yes, I might have, but not for the price I paid,” Armbruster said. Tree Action’s plan, he said, lowers the value of the finished development by replacing garages with less desirable surface parking and changing the layout of the building next to the tree to make the first floor “harder to lay out for any sort of meaningful use.”
Property records show the Brooks sold the property to Ashworth for a little more than $1 million.
“A bank would have required it to be less because the finished value isn’t as high,” Armbruster said. “I purchased a permitted site plan that was all negotiated according to the rules in place today.” Renegotiating the plan now would be like buying a car, driving it off the lot, and getting a call from the dealer asking you to pay more for the tires. “We can’t renegotiate it, because I’ve already purchased it.”
Armbruster said that after tree activists began protesting the removal of the cedar, the tree service provider he hired to remove the tree backed out and he had to hire a new one—an event that’s reflected in city records. Once they’ve completed asbestos remediation and received a permit to remove the tree, work can move forward again, Armbruster said.
There is one way for homeowners to prevent future developers to remove a tree on their property: Before selling a property or passing it on to heirs, an owner can place a covenant on the land to protect the tree. Although both sisters recalled a neighbor telling her mother repeatedly to protect the tree with this kind of covenant, she didn’t. “He would tell my mom, ‘When you sell this house, put it in writing that this tree has to stay,’ and she said, ‘No, don’t tell me what to do,” Beverly recalled.
The sisters say the pressure from neighbors has made them feel uncomfortable returning to their old neighborhood. But Barbara did stop briefly by the recent protest. “I went to their little event,” she recalled, “and said ‘Don’t homeowners, after they pay taxes for 75 years, have the right to sell the place?”
“I’ll be honest with you,” Barbara said, “It’s just like killing my mom over and over. … It’s been three years. Can’t that poor woman just be left alone?”
Who is going to build this nirvana of not for profit dense housing at sufficient speed to catch up with our cities historic and future growth?? You live in a fantasy land if you think this can happen. All of you live in housing built by for profit developers, and the city was originally clear cut so you could have that privilege. The hypocrisy is dumbfounding.
There is a truth gap in this article, between what the family said to the reporter versus the reports of many neighbors, which were shared with Tree Action Seattle. Regardless of the difference in the family’s statements, Seattle has lost yet another valuable tree which provided health benefits to many apartment residents. Architects verified that this project could have been fully built out to the zoning code with even more housing than this plan, while keeping a tree which protected people from heat, pollution and stormwater flooding.
Divisive articles like this pave the way toward Seattle’s future as a polluted urban heat island. Seattle should follow the lead of cities like Portland OR and Vancouver BC, which add homes while maintaining the canopy of big trees. As climate impacts intensify, it’s becoming clear that for livability–and even survivability for those living in frontline communities–we need to follow their lead.
There is a truth gap in this article, between what the family said to the reporter versus the reports of many neighbors, which were shared with Tree Action Seattle. Regardless of the difference in the family’s statements, Seattle has lost yet another valuable tree which provided health benefits to many apartment residents. Architects verified that this project could have been fully built out to the zoning code with even more housing than this plan, while keeping a tree which protected people from heat, pollution and stormwater flooding.
Divisive articles like this pave the way toward Seattle’s future as a polluted urban heat island. Seattle should follow the lead of cities like Portland OR and Vancouver BC, which add homes while maintaining the canopy of big trees. As climate impacts intensify, it’s becoming clear that for livability — and even survivability for those living in frontline communities — we need to follow their lead.
How do you know the neighbors didn’t change the story? There’s a truth gap in your narrative.
Who cares about the legacy of this woman? What matters is a 100+ year old tree came down. Old growth forests are essential to our ecosystem and bringing them down illegally, unsafely, and bringing them down PERIOD is contributing to global warming. Everyone who is responsible for this act, including this propaganda, will feel the heat in the coming years.
Absolute nonsense. Density single family housing sprawl contributes to global warming not cutting down one tree to build dense urban housing.
This tree was not “old growth” and it was not 100 years old, and it was not taken down illegally, despite the lies of Tree Action Seattle.
The tree was 100 years old. You can see the trunk, which is displayed about 4 doors north of this project on the same side of the street. It’s in the public right-of-way (parking strip) adjacent to the sidewalk. You can count the rings.
The arborists said 80 years old. I’ll take their word for it over a group that has been caught lying.
A group that has been caught lying? How so John? Erica has a bias against tree preservation. I don’t always trust her articles.
Yes, tree action Seattle concocted a story about this tree to garner sympathy.
Actually 1000 trees in 2024 alone, not one. Look into into it a bit.Also I counted the.rings, 104. Go count it yourself (right down from the building site on parking strip) instead of saying something you haven’t investigated.
What does this mean? “Density single family housing sprawl”
Great, thought provoking article! I believe there are 3 big myths swirling around both the original article and the comment section. they are…..
Myth number one. “My Seattle” or “Our Seattle”. Nobody can really claim ownership of a City or even a neighborhood as their own. This story is about a family who owned a house and decided to sell it to developers. The reasons why is none of anyone’s business but that family. The redevelopment is 100% in bounds of building regulations, zoning and the law. America was built on strong private property laws and we need to live with that.
Myth number two. Seattle neighborhoods needs to stay the way they are. Cities change all the time, never stay the same. Detroit isn’t the city it once was. Dallas isn’t the city it once was. There are limits and regulations to this change and these are controlled by elected officials. Activists have zero right to change zoning. That’s the job of elected officials alone. Don’t like it? Run for office.
Myth number three. Property rights and redevelopment have absolutely nothing to do with affordable housing, (or saving trees). Developers are in the business of making money, not making sure the rents or mortgages are affordable. Looking at the California wildfires and global warming, there is likely a steady stream of migration to the PNW from California. Developers will tap into that and provide new high end housing for well heeled newcomers before building any new housing for less wealthy locals. Why would the growth patterns of the last 25 years in Seattle change in the next 25 years if the market forces are pretty much the same?
So what’s your point? There is agreement that density is necessary. Does affordable housing mean living in favelas with nothing but concrete and no shade? Do low-income people not deserve beauty? Can’t urban wildlife live with humans? Why is this an either/or for you? Activists have a right to change laws. It’s American, at least it what was. Thanks for the private property lecture by the way.
A one-sided and slightly dishonest story.
Erica refused to interview several neighbors for this story, (who’s contacts she was provided) with their version of events, so she could tell it her way. She presents the substantive issue of tree canopy loss due to developer profiteering with their phony justification of “building affordable housing”, as a simplistic mis-use of an older woman’s wishes, which even itself is contradicted by a number of the neighbors who have lived there for years, in some cases decades.
Developers are acutely aware that portraying themselves as just fulfilling the need for affordable housing plays a lot better than their actual motivation of making money for themselves. All in tune with a city government that itself rakes in money in permits and allows any rationale developers use no matter how strained. A city government that is dedicated to business-as-usual development, not providing for needs of its citizens. These units will not provide the affordable housing Seattle does need, as anyone who has ever looked at these type of units being sold for $700,00-1,000,000 knows.
She sidesteps and doesn’t really portray or highlight the support and dedication of many neighbors in the area to keeping this tree for it’s provision of shade, habitat for bird and other species, and pure joy of life in an increasingly paved over landscape. In fact, many walking by from the neighborhood who saw the protests remarked incredulously, “why do they have to take out that tree, it’s right in front next to the sidewalk and in the corner of the lot?” Or that this tree is being replaced to build. …. a parking space, when all the same number of units could have been built by developers with the tree saved, but who chose not to because they wouldn’t have cashed in quite as much. Poor them.
Celebrate Seattle, as your heat index rises in summer and you fail to protect loss of trees and their contribution to combating climate change, as well as fail to build actual affordable housing with protected green space. A failure on both counts! Thank you Erica!
.
Most long-winded replies I’ve ever seen. For God’s sake: STFU! Please.
Some have a longer attention span than you, I guess.
Seattle very much needs $700,000 homes. That is a price point at which a two earner couple of essential middle class workers here including public school teachers, nurses, and skilled tradespeople at the city and county qualify for a fixed rate mortgage from BECU based on their income,
More of it everywhere in the city please.
But do you deny that 1) “Grandma” is a title no one ever used for this woman and is being used to make up a “folksy” story, and 2) the image of her as someone who loved the tree and watered it daily is a total lie make up to try to sway people to the “save the trees” side? Or do you concede that the reporting here is true, tree proponents have concocted a myth out of whole cloth and are lying about a dead woman in order to try to get the outcome they want?
Well certainly your points are quite disputable. Neighbors who knew the elder Ms. Brooks are the source of where the original name derived from, and the “Brooks” was dropped immediately after it came out the daughters, who had also originally told neighbors their mother wanted to keep the trees, had changed their story. And dropped despite the experience of neighbors who had known her. I don’t know the reasons the daughters seem to be telling a different story now, I could speculate but that’s not going to get at the actual story. So neighbors then renamed the tree “Grandma Cedar”, which stand for the tree itself, without the original association.
Erica interviewed one of the neighbors, not several others. And even more importantly than what is the real picture of who told what to whom, Erica’s piece neither is based on trying to learn about the views in the neighborhood affected, and why they feel as they do which led a number to risk arrest to save the tree, or any situating in the actual loss of tree canopy which this removal is part of. So no, the story wasn’t a myth created out of whole cloth. Far from it.
Forplanetandhumanity believes anonymous neighbors but thinks the daughters of Mrs. Brooks changed their story. No possible way that the neighbors (who seem eager to do anything to prevent the tree from being removed) could possibly be the ones changing the story 🙄
A lot of people are completely missing the broader issue. Seattle has a FINITE number of old, healthy trees. Most people appreciate the carbon capture, groundwater filtration, shade, and beauty – this is the Pacific Northwest. The tree ordinance that passed in 2023, thanks in large part to Bruce Harrell, has resulted in an accelerated rate of removal and developers are exploiting the loopholes for financial gain. Another important aspect of the story could be how Ashworth Homes has a history of not following protocol during demolition. The site tested positive for asbestos AFTER one man did the whole demo, without any PPE, putting him and the surrounding community at risk.
“ many walking by from the neighborhood who saw the protests remarked incredulously, “why do they have to take out that tree, it’s right in front next to the sidewalk and in the corner of the lot?”
Did any of these passersby offer to buy the lot to save the tree?
I doubt if any have millions of dollars, unlike the developers.
it’s such an important discussion – here are resources that have been insightful for me, I’m interested to see others’ research and resources too (from all POVs):
an example of already-enacted 21st century urbanism policy that codifies density + trees: https://www.portland.gov/code/11/all#:~:text=A.,the%20City’s%20residents%20and%20visitors
USFS free resource for tracking what trees are doing for residents – going around the city with this tool makes for a helpful compare/contrast exercise – e.g., try Madrona vs South Park: https://www.itreetools.org/
assessment re carbon sequestration by mature urban US trees (USDA partnership resource): https://vibrantcitieslab.com/resources/carbon-storage-and-sequestration-by-urban-trees-in-the-usa/
2019 USDA guide that can help communities move forward together on the issue: https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fs_media/fs_document/Urban%20Tree%20Canopy%20paper.pdf – “Most useful when it is combined with other information—such as the extent of impervious surfaces, socioeconomic and health data, traffic density, and heat island maps”
This article shares an important point, “There is one way for homeowners to prevent future developers to remove a tree on their property: Before selling a property or passing it on to heirs, an owner can place a covenant on the land to protect the tree”.
Not many home owners know about creating covenant to protect the trees on the property.
Every home owner who cares about the trees on property they own, needs to look into getting the trees protected in this way.
Could a covenant not also be removed by a future owner? This is a new way to drive down a property’s value i hadn’t considered! thank you
For the record, and as a Master Gardener, Western Red Cedar trees do not have “needles”. Douglas fir trees, plentiful in Seattle, have needles. Cedar trees do not shed lots of debris, unlike Madrona trees (highly protected in Seattle). The fact that the author is again showing her housing-above-all-else agenda is glaring. I have little doubt that Mrs. Brooks’ daughters are lying through their teeth. They got their million bucks and damn the neighbors!
The daughters could have simply declined to speak to Erica. They already have their million dollars, so what would they gain by lying? The logic here is very questionable.
I’m sure Ms. Barnett very eagerly sought a negative angle to this story. If you read her articles about trees in the city, you’ll see that she doesn’t like them. And if you like a tree, then you are a racist and a classist. Oh, and where are those stats about preserving green space outside urban areas by leveling them within. Still waiting on that.
Erica Barnett – will you be sitting down with the people you refer to as protesters to get the full story of what went down this morning? There’s a bigger story than you’re reporting on here.
If Barnett personally interviewed each neighbor, would those neighbors tell the truth, or fabricate a story just like Tree Action Seattle evidently did here?
It’s crazy that every tree advocate weighing in is trying to awkwardly speed walk past the deception on display here by the Tree Action Seattle campaign like it doesn’t affect their credibility. Sure the story was baseless, but let’s be sporting and give the neighbors a few more cracks to come up with another tale that’s less provably wrong.
Ya, you’ve swallowed Erica’s story without any knowledge or investigation of the facts or neighbors views, or the actual larger story of tree canopy loss this very simple and one-sided piece tells.
Have a bias Allison? Friend of Erica?
Why did you only quote 1 neighbor? Neighbors will actually feel the impact of losing this old tree the most.
As your article notes, this property has already been sold by the Brooks family to Ashworth for a million dollars. Why are the inheriting daughters more relevant than the neighboring Seattlelites who will actually be impacted by this tree being cut down?
Strange choice to instead devote many paragraphs to the Brooks daughters, since a couple of sentences would have been sufficient to counter the “Grandma Brooks Cedar” story. Why didn’t you speak to more neighbors?
“Neighbors will actually feel the impact of losing this old tree the most.”
Then they should have made an offer to the owners to buy it (or put in place an easement for the life of the tree).
Not everyone is as wealthy as you appear to sound.
Anyone here is free to do their own reporting on their own website. It’s so possible to set up ones on website for next to zero dollars. It’s very curious to me why people are so dead set on critiquing Erica‘s reporting instead of simply doing their own, since you all make it sound so easy to exercise reporting, news, and editorial judgment.
You’re right. Too many people rely on Erica Barnett’s reporting. This is a person with a bias and an agenda.
Apologies for the double posting as I accidentally replied to the wrong comment below.
Anyone here is free to do their own reporting on their own website. It’s still possible to set up ones own website for next to zero dollars. It’s very curious to me why people are so dead set on critiquing Erica‘s reporting instead of simply doing their own, since you all make it sound so easy to exercise reporting, news, and editorial judgment
But the daughters would feel the impact of lessening their inheritance the most. Why didn’t the neighbors just offer to buy the house and save the tree?
Not everyone is as wealthy as you seem to think. So everyone who likes a tree is wealthy? Check your bias.
The article claims that it was “activists” and “protesters” who fought the tree’s removal when in fact it was mostly neighbors. If the author had bothered to interview more than just the one neighbor, she would have a more complete picture of events and the tree’s history.
The assertion that the project cannot be changed is curious as projects change all the time.
Meanwhile, we are losing our tree canopy, and our city–and planet!–is growing ever hotter and more polluted. You can’t just plant another 100-year-old tree. This particular tree was ideally located near busy 65th Ave NE, providing shade on a hot summer day, purified air, habitat for wildlife (which those in adjacent apartment buildings enjoyed watching), and so on. A sad day for the climate crisis and our city.
If you’re concerned about having nice things to look at locally, that’s fair, and one of the things we should maintain or rebuild. If you’re concerned about the climate, however, it’s important to note the big picture: expanding the city’s outskirts always destroys more nature than densifying mid-city. And the harder/slower it is to infill, the more we sprawl instead.
Hi Stephen, I agree with you, expanding the city’s outskirts destroys more nature than densifying. Complementing that truth is research across locations & years on how climate and heat islands in urbanscapes can be affordably and significantly mitigated by urban tree canopy (i.e., trees on the lots), and how housing density + nearby tree canopy delivers necessary health & welfare gains and energy efficiencies for urban residents. There’s also interesting work happening on modern developer practices, architectural innovation and 21st-century urban policy work on how to develop lots for density + trees. The information opened up my thinking and helped me consider how we need to build for the benefit for all who live here and will live here. I encourage you to check it out
The choice of either developing more density in housing and eliminating trees, or expanding the urban-wildland interface is a false one. It’s possible to have increased density with protection of tree canopy, as other cities have shown. It does take less focus on profitability for developers and more on providing for all around needs of people-which are for housing and green space. This approach is also what the climate and ecosystem crisis on our planet demands. And this must include policy for protection of ecosystems much more broadly than just urban areas clearly. Otherwise, you can build all the “density” you want as planetary life unravels.
Provide data. That is a story that is told over and over. How do you know that infill will prevent sprawl? How many folks want green spaces? How many folks want trees? How many folks will want yards for their kids and animals? Do you think that sprawl is only due to housing? What about distribution centers and office parks? No city is going to refuse a development because they want the tax dollars. Use data and then I’ll start listening.
What nonsense. Density is what solves our climate crisis, not a handful of urban trees
No, actually, not nonsense. An overall approach of protection of mature and older trees both in and outside of urban areas is required to meet the climate crisis, (along with other key measures-notably vast reduction of fossil fuel use). Such is also required as well as to protect people living in urban areas from the escalating heat waves and wildfires the planet is facing. This can be done while building in density that is not developer profit-focused but keeping large trees with nuanced and smarter building plans. The dichotomy-either destroy urban trees and don’t expand, or expand and destroy the ecosystems beyond-is ridiculous nonsense and a failure actually, only basing on “how things work now”. We need something completely different, and quite possible.
It’s a combination. And a handful here, a handful there, matters. By the way, lower income folks have a right to live in a nice place. Favelas have density. Do they save the climate?
Looking outside of Seattle to assess how other cities and regional jurisdictions are addressing trees in terms of long-range climate planning and environmental justice was the massive wake-up call for me. Other communities are not having a problem. They’re ensuring the right of residents of all wealth levels – especially those in new housing and in the generations to come – to the health, climate-mitigation, and economic benefits of community trees. Portland for example is way ahead of us in recognizing the total disregard for environmental justice that comes with the removal of carbon-sequestering, shade-giving mature trees in urbanscapes, and in how they’re ushering in future-minded development, architectural, and policy standards to ensure all their residents have a chance at the low-cost, high-efficiency help that is tree shade. (Why is Portland alwayyyys ahead of us… ?!) The alternative: soaring AC bills, more heat islands, worse health issues, disrupted storm management … and Laurelhurst and Broadmoor are not the neighborhoods where that’s all going to hit hard. Trees + available affordable housing = stable, healthy communities for the longterm. Check out the USFS research on the health/welfare benefits of urban tree canopy (before the current administration removes it from the USFS website, if they haven’t already!)
There is a truth gap in this article, between what the heirs said to the media versus multiple neighbors. The reporter interviewed one neighbor and declined to interview the five others offered as contacts. Regardless of the heirs, Seattle has lost yet another valuable tree which could have provided health benefits to many nearby apartments and the community for decades to come, with no loss of new housing.
Meh. I don’t recall a peep when the city suddenly ripped out a dozen? Maybe many more? trees along Fairview Ave N, about a month ago. Personally I was not happy to see them go for no discernible reason, but if you want to make a political issue of it you should learn to be consistent first.
hi Samm, thank you for your concern for those Fairview Ave N trees. We’re a committed coalition and we do need more people to be able to track and respond to the fast-moving permits and actions. I think if you check out TreeActionSeattle record and breadth of the coalition you’ll be reassured – I hope you’ll consider joining us
I’m strongly sympathetic to tree protection (when it isn’t just a cover to prevent construction), but the idea that anything in Seattle is “fast-moving” is hard to take seriously. Building anything around here is a never-ending series of delays and setbacks. That’s why tree protection makes such a good cover for people who want to discourage any change at all.
Actually Samm you should look up Tree Action Seattle website https://www.treeactionseattle.org/
to see what work it actually has done on countless efforts to protect trees from the south end to Shoreline before you accuse it without knowledge of those efforts.
There are so many trees being removed across the city both legally and illegally that one group can’t handle everything. There are literally lots that have had dozens of trees removed. You are all freaking out because Erica Barnett, the angriest woman in Seattle, chose to make this one of her biased attacks. These groups are doing the work that SDCI should be doing. Oh, and by the way, there is also work being done by VOLUNTEERS on the One Seattle Comprehensive Plan and the Tree Ordinance. People doing things for free. So, if you didn’t want those trees to go, why didn’t YOU say something.
Sandy,
You work endlessly to prevent development and prevent new housing. I’ve spoken with you a number of times. You’re well-intentioned and pleasant but you clearly believe trees are more important than housing for people. Your actions cause the price of housing to increase and prevent people from securing housing.
We need forests and the Growth Management Act ensures that. Your work puts actual forests at risk.
Please prioritize healthy cities and housing for all and step aside from the performative tirade.
HI F Buncher, please take a look at our blog posts and campaigns–we advocate for abundant housing with access to trees for everyone. Other cities like Vancouver BC are adding lots of new housing and saving big native trees, and making space for more trees. This means climate resilience and tree equity for everyone. I hope you’ll take a closer look at our website and advocacy–we are for both housing and trees.
Oh please. She is not against housing. She’s against greedy developers and venture capitalists erasing our “Emerald City” for profit. The capitalist who purchased it said in the article he would lose money if he changed the plans. It’s about the benjamins and nothing else. Tree Action Seattle is right to stand up for trees when build baby build ideologues want to do so at any cost. Screw climate change and the fact that new construction hurts the environment more than keeping current and trees help fight pollution. Duh. Land is not infinite. Read the Lorax by Dr. Seuss. Maybe returning to preschool will help you see the greed that motivates people to destroy trees when other options are available.
Hi F Buncher, part of what impressed me in becoming familiar with Sandy’s work is her public health expertise and how public-health-informed her work is. And how she advocates for everyday people – including those who need housing, across the city, north and south east and west – to have the protection of trees so they can be safe and healthy now and in the years to come. I encourage you to go through the research showing why shared urban tree canopy matters for cardiovascular health, respiratory health, fewer emergency room visits… it was very eye-opening for me. It’s on all of us to champion related forward-thinking policy for urbanscapes. That’ll matter for people in new housing. Developers like everyone are now in an era where shared realities mean practices need updating. We need developers as partners in our communities. A big, growing, multipartisan circle is forming here and creative forward-thinking developers are part of it – I hope you will be too
Knock it off Buncher. That’s not true. She doesn’t believe that. She believes in a balance. As someone who grew up poor, this comment pisses me off. Trees are NOT what’s causing land values to rise. It’s greedy developers who are selling houses for a million dollars and more. Affordable housing you want? Then frigging work for it. Stop protecting developers and letting the use you. You want forests? So urban forests don’t matter? The wildlife here don’t matter? I hope that you are working diligently then to protect our national forests and state forests (by the way, managed for education expenses not for the environment.) Healthy cities include trees. FFS. Talk about performative tirades.
Funny how people say the reporting got it wrong but have no alternative facts to provide.
Funny how you have so many pithy comments!
Please, tell me how the daughters are wrong. Tell me how Tree Action Seattle are not liars.
So the heirs were lying when they said that you guys have made up a nickname that this woman never used, to tell a false story that never happened? Is that your argument? Or is that the ugly truth that you think five more neighbors saying “well we happen to like the tree (and we don’t want infill)” is going to cover up? This isn’t an opinion poll, it’s journalism.
I’m confused by this comment. Are you saying the heirs lied? If so, what proof can you offer? And what would they stand to gain by doing so?
After implying the heirs lied, you then appear to concede that you don’t care what the heirs have to say. Why imply they lied if they don’t matter? Why don’t you just say that you don’t care what they have to say, instead of trying to discredit them?
NIMBY Boomers lying to advance their own agenda? That’s a first.
Being a YIMBY requires us to actually have our own backyard, and a property tax bill with our name on it. Without those we are just GIMMES telling other people what to do with their property. Sometimes it sucks to be us.
No you’ve got it backwards. Yimby’s aren’t telling anyone what to do with their property. That’s the nimbys that want to limit property rights. What is confusing to you is that property rights end at your property line.
Stop calling people NIMBY when you know nothing about their values or where they come from. I could easily infer things about you from your YIMBY tag.
Good. Infer things about the YIMBY tag. Infer that I’m pro new home construction everywhere, even if it might run counter to my direct interests because I believe the common good outweighs my personal concerns.
Actually, what I am tired of are your endless hate filled screeds against Erica.
Jealous much?
this is one of the funniest stories i have ever read. a great, local piece of journalism, free of any kind of agenda. just the sheer irony and humor of the direct reporting you did and the wonderful quotes. more of this!
Actually, if you believe that, it’s unusual as Erica is known for her anger and bias. Great reporting when she’s calm.
Not one person has providing an alternate narrative despite so many claims of bias. Please help me understand how the daughters are liars and not tree action Seattle.