Yet another proposed ordinance in South Euclid

One advantage of being old is that, as long as one maintains one's mental faculties, one has a long memory.  I'm old enough to remember when the Mcdonald's on Mayfield Road in South Euclid (which has been rebuilt at least twice) featured signs on the outside proclaiming "CITY ORDINANCE - NO EATING IN CARS."

It recently came to my attention that the South Euclid City Council is considering an ordinance to regulate the removal of large trees on the private property of South Euclid residents.  As a hard-working, tax paying, voting resident of South Euclid, I am strongly OPPOSED to this ordinance. 

When I purchased my home on South Belvoir Boulevard in 2008, there were four large oak trees on my property – two in the front yard, one in the back yard, and one bordering my neighbor’s property.  Over the course of time, it became necessary to remove two of these trees because of the danger they presented to our homes – in fact, a large branch broke from the tree in the back yard and pierced through the roof of my house’s extension, requiring an expensive repair.  Removing large trees is an expensive proposition.  I can assure you that no homeowner makes the decision lightly.  The last thing we need is yet another government commission looking over our shoulders.

City council was fine with this development at Queen Ann Court, which cut down numerous mature trees - which won't be replaced.  But when it comes to removing trees on YOUR property, they want to make the decision for you.

My parents moved to South Euclid in 1971.  From then until 1980 we lived on Queen Mary Drive.  The backyard of our house faced a wooded area.  Since I moved back to South Euclid in 2008, South Euclid has aggressively pursued developments of large tracts of land, including Cutters Creek, Oakwood Commons, and more recently the Queen Ann Court extension and now Trebisky Grove.  These projects have and will result in many large, mature trees being cut down – the vast majority of which will never be replaced.  The chief proponent of this new ordinance has cited the environmental, infrastructural, and mental health benefits of trees.  I have no argument with that.  My question is this: did the proponent or any supporters of this ordinance support any of the developments listed above?  If so, then their advocacy of this ordinance reeks of hypocrisy, because those developments cause far more damage to our environment and strain on our local infrastructure than individual property owners will.  I find it bitterly ironic that City Council now wishes to regulate hard working, tax-paying residents whose aim is merely to maintain their own property as they see fit.  South Euclid homeowners already struggle with some of the highest property taxes in northeast Ohio.  In the final analysis, it is the property owner who is the best judge as to whether to maintain a tree on his own property or remove it, not a city entity.  South Euclid’s population has dropped by some 27% since its peak in 1970.  Don’t give those of us who remain here another reason to leave.