Regarding the Feb. 20 guest commentary, “New tree rules offer protection”: So the executive director of the Master Builders Association is surprised that someone might notice the county policies completely fail to protect healthy trees, even when they belong to the neighbors? Really? The headline completely obscures the point: County regulations purposefully do not protect any living trees. The incentive is to allow complete removal of every tree on site. Any regard for tree function, beauty, historic relevance to the community, botanical value, or the ownership of affected trees by the neighbors, has no standing in the rules. The “green” track granting incentives of increased density for protection of specimen trees on a canopy basis is entirely voluntary, which in Snohomish County means ignored.
You would think that the local planning community might take pride in taking as much care of our living legacy as they do with historic character and other livability issues that are often placed on new projects to help build strong communities.
The MBA touts adherence to the International Society for Arboriculture as “the authority“ for our county policy. If so, we’ve missed the forest for the trees, since a review of ISA’s website finds strong support for protecting living tree canopy resources and the statement: “Regardless of the approach used, existing forests and woodlands should generally be subject to higher conservation standards than potential forest land because existing forests generally have much greater ecological value than a newly planted stand.” This is far cry from advocating clear cuts with replanting.
Lori Carter
Snohomish
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
