If they're small trees, it's OK, but large trees should be protected, especially the oaks. When we moved into our neighborhood, the developer planted trees in front of every house. Eventually, more than half of them were taken out. I wish they had left them.
temporarily unemployed designer
Yes. People should have the right despite its size or age. I've lived on the west of Danville for 35 years where there are lots of trees. We were glad when a neighbor removed 30 Monterey pines that were ruining their house foundation, and it gave us back our view of Mount Diablo. Redwood trees are not indigenous to the Danville area; and people have a right to remove trees on their property.
I think you should be able to decorate your home with trees and foliage you feel comfortable with and that is attractive to you. If a protected tree is going to be a liability to someone and their property, then it should be removed. However, it is prudent to have the town give approval for protected trees
Dr. Michael Ricupito
Absolutely, because they own the property, and it's theirs to do with as they want. I'm all for protection of trees, old trees, but if it's diseased, get rid of it.
actor and model
An owner should be able to clear a tree that is obstructive or threatening. However, real estate sales should require the disclosure of any tree ordinance, so that being forearmed is forewarned. At the time of purchase, trees of a designated status may not be large enough to be within the restriction of the ordinance. However, they may grow to a protected status.
retired Naval officer
This story contains 310 words.
If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.
If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.