By Erica C. Barnett
We managed to dig in to three (!) hot topics on this week’s episode of Seattle Nice: Mayor Bruce Harrell’s comment that Trump “surrounds himself by some of the smartest innovators around”—Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, David Sacks, and Marc Andreessen; a Seattle Times story about the ongoing closure of Victor Steinbrueck Park on the waterfront due to a dispute over two controversial totem poles; and the story I wrote about two women who sold a house that had been in their family for more than 70 years and walked into a buzzsaw of anger when activists learned the buyer planned to cut down a large tree on the property.
That tree story continues to get more comments than just about anything I’ve ever written, most of them calling me angry and biased and saying I have a vendetta against trees. If you haven’t read it, don’t get too excited—it’s a reported piece about what happened with one tree when the family that owned the property decided to sell it after their mother died at 101.
Tree Action Seattle created an action page for “Grandma Brooks’ Cedar” and led protests against the removal of the tree, claiming that the former owner, Barbara Brooks, cherished the cedar and told various people verbally that she wanted it saved after she died. Her daughters, including one who lived with her during the last years of her life, said nothing could be further from the truth: “Mom hated that tree,” they both told me independently—and no one called her “Grandma Brooks.”
Both women were quite upset at the way Tree Action and some neighbors have characterized their mother and her wishes after her death, and said they no longer feel comfortable in their old neighborhood. Tree Action, meanwhile, has doubled down, saying the sisters previously said that they planned to save the tree, reneged, and are now lying.
Activists from outside the neighborhood, as well as some neighbors, have argued that I should have discounted the Brooks’ story about their own experience and reported that their stories were false—or, at the very least, presented the Brooks’ version as dubious compared to the narrative on Tree Action’s “Grandma Brooks’ Cedar” page. Ultimately, reporting usually involves speaking to human beings and reporting their version of events; in this case, I found the Brooks sisters to be very credible when describing their own family’s story.
PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.
Both sisters’ stories were remarkably consistent: They told me their mother “hated that tree” because it required so much maintenance, and recalled that neighbors did not pitch in to help when their mother was alive and taking care of the tree on her own. They laughed bitterly at the image of their mother lovingly carrying buckets of water out to the tree in the summer; she did water her flowers with a bucket when it was hot, they said, but not the tree—which, both mentioned, prevented their mother from gardening in a large portion of her yard.
Both sisters also mentioned that neighbors often pestered their mother to put a covenant on the property to save the tree, but she refused. “My neighbor across the street— for years 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,'” one of her daughters, Beverly, told me.
In the end, like most families who sell their houses, the Brooks sold for the best price they could get and moved on—thinking, they said, that this would be the end of the story. “Don’t homeowners, after they pay taxes for 75 years, have the right to sell the place?” daughter Barbara said.
Like, I have to imagine, most people who live in Seattle, I love trees. Seattle’s natural beauty is one of the primary reasons I decided to move here. But I also know that the only way to meaningfully protect the city’s tree canopy long-term is by planting more trees for future generations to enjoy, including trees in public spaces like parks (where a 2023 study found that more than half the tree canopy loss in the city is actually occurring). The new development on the Brooks’ property, for instance, includes six new privately owned trees and one new street tree. No, those new trees won’t immediately replace the shade of the one tree that was removed. But they will eventually.
That’s the thing about trees: They often live longer than we do, long enough for us to forget about the context in which they actually grew. An 80-year-old, or even 100-year-old, cedar is not part of some old-growth forest—it was almost certainly planted, as landscaping, by the people who built the resource-hogging single-family houses that now make up neighborhoods like Ravenna. Go way back, and you’ll find, yes, developers who clear-cut the ancient forest that used to cover this part of the Pacific Northwest, scraping the ground bare so that white colonizers could live here in the manner they preferred.
Should North Seattle homeowners have to think about that every time they look up at a tree on someone’s private lawn and awe at the sweep of its branches? I’m not saying that, but I do think some perspective is in order. Banning private land owners from removing every large but not exceptional tree, which some advocates argue should happen as part of an upcoming review of the city’s tree ordinance, will indeed protect isolated older trees in people’s yards. It will also directly prevent the development of desperately needed housing in Seattle—pushing more and more people into distant exurbs, which can only be built by destroying the healthy forests that are large trees’ natural habitat.
I’ve learned a lot from this comment thread. My biggest takeaway is to always say what Sandy or Tree Action Seattle wants to hear. If you don’t say the thing, it’s because you didn’t get the whole story, or you misunderstood, or you are purposely lying.
After seeing the back and forth in these comments it’s clear that there’s a lot more going on than general upset over a tree scheduled to come down. So I went ahead and researched the orgs and people involved and drew my own conclusions about what motives might be at play. Thank you Erica for your reporting! And thank you Sandy for drawing so much attention to your cause!
Not sure where you are going with this. I don’t understand the comment but, yes, please do your own research. Always.
After reading this and the older articles on this topic, this seems to be the key argument agains keeping the tree:
“the site plan proposed by Tree Action would have substantially reduced the size of one unit and eliminated two garage parking spaces, lowering the value of the site plan to less than Armbruster paid for it”
So yes, the developer and new property owner are behaving “logically” within their directive of increasing profit. And yes, the sisters are behaving “logically” within their goal of maximizing the return of the investment in the house their mother has cared for all these years. But in the end, would the collective, cumulative benefits of the tree staying there have outweighed the personal benefits of this less of a dozen people? Based on research, the answer is a clear yes – we would be better off collectively if we had kept the tree (plenty of research available online, but here’s a short summary article: https://environmentamerica.org/center/articles/what-are-the-benefits-of-urban-trees-in-cities/ and here’s a longer paper: https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/Public_Health_Benefits_Urban_Trees_FINAL.pdf). By the way, this measurements are based on past climate conditions, without taking into account global heating and the rest of climate alterations we’re going to see in the very short term. We don’t want to be in a position where we look back in distress at how much better it would have been to keep these resilient trees that were already here.
Oh, about planting new trees to make up for the mature ones removed – this argument has been thoroughly debunked. It would take a long time for these young saplings to offer the benefits of an established tree like the one just removed. It would be more expensive to maintain (with your taxpayer money that could go towards improving roads or public parks). But more than anything, it’s likely that they just won’t make it to mature age, as they require a level of care (which mature trees don’t) that’s uncertain they’ll receive. Here’s some more data on the benefits of mature vs young trees: https://www.deeproot.com/blog/blog-entries/why-investing-in-mature-tree-growth-is-beneficial-for-cities-a-financial-and-environmental-case/.
How do we get out of this dilemma between the present, private rights of some and the collective, cumulative benefit of many? There’s not an easy answer. That’s why organizations like Tree Action Seattle need to exist – so present and future implications, private and public concerns, are all on the table for everyone to discuss. Without them, the power of the capital market (not the housing crisis, not the forests outside of the city) is going to make the decision for us and leave us with no options.
“How do we get out of this dilemma between the present, private rights of some and the collective, cumulative benefit of many? ”
Seattle’s 135,000 homeowners could go out and plant 250,000 trees next weekend – which 99% of them have the room and means to do – and we’d be well out of the woods for meeting our tree canopy goal in 2037.
Maybe we should start there.
Who is going to water them? Do you know that so many trees that are planted simply die? It takes five years for them to be established. I can’t tell you how many new trees are planted that I see dying. They don’t survive the summer droughts. If someone can solve that problem, count me in.
“Who is going to water them? Do you know that so many trees that are planted simply die? It takes five years for them to be established. I can’t tell you how many new trees are planted that I see dying. They don’t survive the summer droughts. If someone can solve that problem, count me in.”
Every homeowner who plants a tree can easily solve that problem themselves.
Thanks Erica for pointing out that the real outcome of blocking housing in the city is increased sprawl. Every time I visit Mt. Rainier I am heartbroken to see all the clearcutting for development in the cascade foothills. Thousands of trees being cut and none of my N Seattle neighbors seem to care. So much habitat loss. We need more housing in the city, and more public parks with more trees. Less clear-cutting in the S King County exurbs.
They will be cut anyway. People want to live in nature. If they can’t find it in urban areas, they will move out of them to find yards for your kids. Oh, and by the way, look into all the recreational damage that is being done in these forests that are so important to you. Humans are destroying the forests no matter what because of poor oversight and laws, but tell yourself the story you want to hear.
Interesting how much people defend property for housing — protect single family assets at all costs! — but let someone do what they like with a tree on that same property and listen to the howling. Some people will carp about modern design home near their rambler but I bet they don’t mind the uptick in their resale value.
Jason @ February 28, 2025 at 3:46 pm is on the money but we are not going to build 100,000 homes (and I am sure he knows this) without significant changes to how we use land, how we value and tax it. We have developable land also over the city but too much of is locked up under parking lots or vacant buildings or is just plain overpriced.
I have always considered Erica to be a very good journalist. This piece has changed my mind, it is clearly a shoddy job with limited substance and does not fairly give the reader the depth of substance needed to understand what is happening to trees in Seattle. If Erica can’t get a grasp on all angles of such a hot topic and publish a story that is fair, unbiased and soundly researched, she should not attempt to wade in. Sandy is an honest, devoted advocate for trees and affordable housing and works tirelessly to show disbelievers that there is a way to have the best of both worlds. Seattle is not called “The Emerald City” for it’s jewels. I just wish Erica had the same hatred for cars as she does for trees.
This “journalist” seems awfully defensive. She’s gotten so many facts wrong in her reporting of the tree story and seems to think that saying them more loudly will make them true.
One has to wonder why she continues to pit housing advocates against tree advocates when so many people are not divided on this but want and should be able to have both.
And now a new take. She “knows” that we can protect our tree canopy by planting multiple saplings after we cut down our 100-year-old conifers. Does she have any idea what time it is?
Erica, write about something you know. Trees and canopy loss you know little to nothing about. This tree is around 100 years old. Counts of tree rings after the developer cut it range from 95-105 years after 3 people counted. So the tree was very likely seeded from former old growth forest. As a Western red cedar, it’s a native tree that is widespread in our state and was widespread in the Seattle area before being cut down by “white colonizer” developers, logging companies. The funny thing is by using that comment, you try to make yourself hip, when you actually support the same thing happening now with our current crop of “white colonizer developers”! Poor logic!
You speak of planting more trees as the solution to wiping out some of this really large older mature and even bordering on old growth age trees. What are these trees being planted? Do you know? Do you know how long it would take for this assemblage of new seedlings on this lot but more importantly throughout the city (where at least 1000 large trees were removed in 2024 alone https://www.treeactionseattle.org/post/1000-trees-have-been-lost-in-seattle-2024 ), to achieve the level of gifts to people and the environment (ecosystem services in common parlance) in terms of carbon capture, filtering water and air, providing shade that these large mature trees offer, providing habitat to wildlife species? Do you have any prediction or substantive estimate of how any of this will matter over the next 20 or 30 years at a time of escalating climate crisis and global heating, including the heat index rise Seattle is already experiencing? https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattles-growth-is-heating-up-the-region-literally-see-where/ Clearly No, no, no, and no.
All you are able to do is base your entire story on what the two daughters of the elderly owner of this lot say about how the nasty neighbors who support trees are misusing their mother’s legacy. A highly contested story since a number of neighbors who knew and interacted with her state the opposite-and no, you haven’t pursued them. All in service of defending developers wiping out trees and building housing that is not affordable, when the same housing could have been built with a little thought and planning, and yes, maybe a bit less money in their pockets. And the developers and powerful real estate interests along with city officials who actually wiped out affordable housing downtown in the first place to build high rises, now spread out into neighborhoods wiping out tree canopy, falsely, frankly ridiculously, behind the argument they “care” about providing for people without means who need affordable housing. Laughable.
Steve Zemke is a friend of mine and I very much support the work but your incessant whining and pitching hate at Erica has me headed to the side of clear cutting developers.
So, I guess not really much of an appetite for saving canopy or trees or their importance environmentally, glad we cleared that up and know which side you align with!
Hi everyone! As Erica has discussed in her past 3 articles, her account and conversation with the daughters is different than what we heard from 5 neighbors who spoke to the daughters. In the end, this is a “he said she said” issue.
It’s distracting from the real story, though. Seattle’s failing tree ordinance caused the removal of 2,000 trees last year. This tree was the only large tree shading residents in a nearby apartment complex. Trees are critical climate infrastructure that protect communities that can’t afford AC and don’t have access to nearby green space. As #5 in the nation for urban heat islands, Seattle has a duty to do better.
Housing density can happen while keeping out trees — it’s been legally proven by the Seattle hearing examiner, and it’s also proven time and time again when volunteer architects redraw site designs, pro-bono, that keep trees and maintain the same amount of housing. They did that for this site too.
Please join us in advocating for housing and trees. Learn more: treeactionseattle.org/learn
As a loving grandson, in 1962, I planted a knee-high Douglas Fir seedling in my grandmothers back yard. Many years later, that fir had a disease, laminar root rot. This soil-borne disease kills the tree from the tip down and destroys the roots in the process. We now own this property after the passing of my dear grandmother. The tree was of imminent danger to surrounding homes, so sadly, but wisely, we had the now 62-foot tree removed, at a cost of $2200 in 2017. As majestic and beautiful as our tree was, I could empathize with “Grandma’s” tree story. It is also not a surprise to learn that there was a fair amount of journalistic license taken in the Times article, which I also read. Sometimes trees are simply living in the wrong place. Yes, we can all mourn their loss, but the collective “we” is not first in line to care for or mitigate the damages when disaster strikes.
We owned another “landmark” tree at a property in South Seattle, a majestic Western Red Cedar. During the Inaugural Day Storm of 1991, one of the “antlered” branches of the tree sheared off, an eighteen-hundred pound sprig, causing severe roof damage to the roof I had just built. That could easily have killed someone. Again, a giant cedar shouldn’t be planted next to a house.
We do need to manage our forest canopy in the City, and perhaps another effort such as what ReTree Ballard created can be re-energized to rekindle momentum here.
One of the key tenets of Urban Forestry is “right tree, right place”. The growth habits of cedars make them precarious neighbors once they are large and mature and have nothing sheltering them from high winds. They can live for a very, very long time, but it is routine for their tops to break off even in natural forests.
As you also correctly point out, laminar root rot is a serious issue for doug firs in the region, and can cause a large trees to blow down in a very sudden manner, with serious potential for property damage and loss of life. Sammamish has had to grapple with LRR in their parks because of this.
Urban forestry is a complex balancing act that requires a lot of long term thinking. Seattle’s tree policies have long been a mess, enforced very poorly, and easy to circumvent. That doesn’t mean we need to go in the complete opposite direction and make it impossible to remove trees.
The city also needs to develop a plan to address the poorly thought out street tree plantings they are currently maintaining; much of the city is planted with eastern hardwoods that are going to have an increasingly hard time with our very dry summers. It’s already common to see a lot of crown dieback in street trees around Seattle in August due to water stress.
The reporter presents only one side of the story. She states that she personally found the family to be credible. But she declined two offers to talk to the large number of neighbors who have a different story. We’ll never know if she would have also found the neighbors credible, because she didn’t want to talk to them.
This article is an intentional distraction from Seattle’s failed tree policies which fuel clearcuts and cement Seattle’s 5th-in-the-nation status as an urban heat island. Heavily-paved cities cause long-term health problems which primarily affect people who have lower incomes. Vulnerable people living in urban heat islands die during summer heat waves.
Divisive articles like this one are a gift to private equity forces intent on extracting profit from well-intentioned efforts to increase housing. Seattle can follow the lead of other cities like Portland OR and Vancouver BC, and build abundant housing while retaining trees and planting new ones. This article perpetuates a false choice where everyone except entrenched profit interests loses.
Sandy, as I have said to you over email repeatedly, you did not send me a long list neighborhood residents you continually claim you did. You provided a total of two people’s phone numbers, and I called them both, interviewing one for this story. The other, as I noted in the piece, did not call me back. Then, for a followup story that you have also commented on, I went out and spoke to four more people who were standing across the street at various points while the tree was being removed. I’m not obligated to call more advocates on one side than the other (as you’re suggesting I should have done) for any story about any issue, but I spoke to six people on your side of this one and I don’t understand why you continually insist on saying I didn’t. It certainly does not make me trust the veracity of your version of this story when I can see you here on my website saying things about me that are patently false!
Erica, I will send you our email thread and highlight the times I offered twice to share contact info for the many other neighbors with you. You replied that you had already spoken to one neighbor, and that was enough, since you were already speaking with the developer, the daughters, etc. I’ll highlight those parts of my emails. I’m sorry you don’t trust my “veracity” but I stand by our original post. And I also stand by my concern that these articles are a red herring designed to draw attention away from the real problem, which is the rapid and completely unnecessary loss of Seattle’s trees in the name of housing. We have proven time and again that we need both, we can have both, and that other cities are miles ahead of Seattle in both. I hope that you will take a closer look at the climate impacts coming our way, and what is needed to survive them.
Hi Erica, I sent you an email from Tuesday and highlighted where I asked specifically: “Would you be interested in talking to the many other neighbors besides Z who also heard them say that the tree would be saved?” In terms of neighbors to interview, since you were trying to verify the story, it seems that you would want to talk to those original sources, rather than just any person who happened to be out when you came by for a visit.
Your response to my email was that you hadn’t yet reached out to a different person–a potential investor named Steve–regarding the other offer made on the property. So my question–and offer to put you into contact with other neighbors who could verify that they had indeed spoken with me prior to our post– was ignored. I appreciate the effort you made in coming over to the site, but talking to other people who happened to be out when you came isn’t the same as hearing from the original sources.
I’m sorry to keep this conversation going for so long, but given that my honesty (“veracity”) is being called into question I don’t see how I can avoid responding.
I’m also concerned that the Tree Action Seattle comment still hasn’t posted since yesterday at noon. I do appreciate that you’ve gone to the trouble to figure out why WordPress is blocking us. But now it’s been over 24 hours and many other comments have shown up. Since these articles are specifically about Tree Action Seattle, we would be grateful to have ours visible as well.
Can you give an example of an actual forest or significant stand of trees that was “clearcut” under Seattle’s current tree policies? Obviously, removing a few trees from a single lot strains the definition of “clearcutting” to the point of breaking, so I assume that’s now what you’re talking about here. But most of the larger forests, or forest-like stands of trees I’m aware of in Seattle are on public property. If Seattle is clearcutting its parks, that seems like something an organization called “Tree Action Seattle” should be focused on to a much greater degree than single trees on private lots.
It’s also puzzling that you seem to be insinuating that Ashwood Homes is “private equity” rather than a local small business.
Hi DJW, one example is the project currently in permitting at 5834 Woodlawn Ave NE. Of 18 mature trees on this lot, 15 are currently proposed for removal. This is almost two groves if one uses the City definition of “grove” as 8 trees with contiguous canopy. Other examples which have long since been cleared are groves that previously existed at 10829 11th Ave NE (8 trees) or 12011 36th Ave NE (13 trees), these projects are complete or near-complete.
The housing being built is not affordable for those who desperately need housing, and I’m skeptical about the “desperately needed” piece as well. We are selling out our beautiful place to make space for people who accept positions here in part because it’s a beautiful place. It’s already a lot less beautiful than it has been and no longer a most liveable place. Apparently that part is ignored or determined to be of no moment in the rush for the money and guaranteed lifetime employment for politicians once they leave office. Very sad.
This disparagement of defense of trees in favor of housing is supremely discouraging.
Man
Just give this issue a rest.
Erica did a fine job reporting a neighborhood story.
Sho doesn’t deserve this vitriol.
Did you get this worked up yachts at Fisherman’s Terminal?
The proposed redevelopment of the uplands there?
Housing within frieght mobility corridors in SODO?
So since you are so concerned with tree coverage let me ask, did you offer the developer money to offset the loss in revenue they would have taken modifying the design to keep the tree? Did anyone in the neighborhood help care for it? When people said the former owner should get a covenant did they say “and I’ll pay you the difference in value so the tree is kept”?
Because what it sounds like is you’re demanding a private citizen provide a public benefit, and getting all bent out of shape that you don’t get free things. And sorry, but tough shit, that’s how life goes. And don’t get me wrong, trees are great, they’re vital… and if you want more of them in public places then you need to work through the democratic process and have this be publicly funded. But assuming you have any right to anything on someone else’s property is a remarkably childish attitude.
And as for housing in Seattle being badly needed… have you fucking looked at home prices recently, or god forbid tried to buy one? Seriously, like, this is Supply and Demand, Econ 101. More people want houses than there are houses available, so the price of housing rises until there’s a rough balance between supply and demand. And lest you think that’s not it consider this thought exercise… if magically there were 100,000 new houses in Seattle tomorrow, all across the city, what would happen to the price of housing?
I appreciate that Trump tells people they can have whatever facts they feel like but grow the fuck up, Erica’s reporting is spot-on. You’re just grumpy because the daughters (you know, the ones with any legal right or say here) are telling you that you’re greedy and to sit down and shut up.