Don't mess with the TREES!!!
Ingraham trees, strong and tall
Majestic as the day approaches.
Seattle School District Dark and Menacing
trampling as the day appears
Who will remember this BATTLE FOR THE TREES?
We will, WE WILL!!
CRY THE NEIGHBORS strong and loud!
The battle has only just begun, the District has began its long and dulling battles, first appeal with the SEPA to begin on June 19th and 20th.
How odd that the School District has CHOSEN to call Majestic, 100 foot Douglas Fir, Cedar and Madrone trees non-significant. In this day and age of Global warming, environmental awareness, and overall ecological benefits that the environment brings to society the School District is revealing its own ignorance and blindness, by calling TREES insignificant. Let alone the fact that the School District is condemning an entire Urban Forest to a clear cut. It must be politically correct to call the Seattle School District anti-environmentalist, Right?
One must question the type of classes that are being taught within Seattle Schools. If TREES are insignificant to an Environment, are people insignificant to the human race? When the School is named after a known Mountaineer, and Conservationist, what is the School District thinking about when it comes to clear cutting the Urban Forest? How can the District be so blind? Are they going to change the name of the School too? It would only be appropriate, since there will be nothing left to claim environmental value.
Recently there was a letter sent to the School Board from the City Council, stating that the City Council members would offer support and other means to move the addition at Ingraham to another site on campus and spare the Trees.
May 21st the Seattle School Board answered the City Council letter with a "forget you" attitude. Not only did the School Board tell the City Council to get lost, but it also said the neighbors weren't worth listening to.
The School Board may not think the neighbors are worth listening to now, but wait until the BTA levy and the BEX IV levy come around for a vote, then the School Board will want the neighbors to listen...But the neighbors will say NO!
Yep, the neighbors will JUST SAY NO! And maybe add: REMEMBER THE TREES?
Ingraham update
6 months ago
2 comments:
The appeal hearing has changed to June 25th and 27th until further notice. Which means a request has been made to move the hearing into july. So heads up everyone.
I took my 20 year old son, an Ingraham alumnus, to see the grove. This Memorial Day weekend Robert was home on leave from active military service, prior to deploying to Iraq in June.
He remarked that there seems to be plenty of room to put the 9 classrooms on the north lawn of the campus.
The forest has attributes that cannot be duplicated by any construction by humans. The contiguous nature of the 100 trees creates a micro-climate that is a sheltered spot for people and wilodlife. The perch trees for birds serve as a staging area prior to flying to Haller Lake, a few hundred yards away.
Clusters of trees should receive enhanced protection by the development process. This 'groveness' has characteristics that are completely separate from the role of individual trees scattered in peoples yards throughout the city. Cities are harsh places for people and trees to live, just look at the concrete canyons of Aurora Avenue or downtown Seattle. The Ingraham Forest has far reaching qualities that improve the living experience for others besides the students on site.
The District's website has the BEX Site Committee meeting minutes online from December 5th, 2005. Let the record show that an architects bid for building within the grove was submitted at a cost of $4.7 million dollars. This was months before any citizens were in attendance or appointed to the committee. This was a staff-only committee, whose decision at this 3rd meeting is a done-deal, which still stands. Notice after the successful tax levy election the project has ballooned to over quadruple this dollar amount. I also noted from the minutes that a comment was quoted from the second meeting, that "the neighbors will be furious if these trees are cut down". I believe this is true.
Listening to the parents who were later appointed to the committee, I respect their due consideration, but am not convinced that this project should be built for the absolutely cheapest amount possible. As a tree care consultant for the last 35 years, I have found that steering clear of trees on construction projects often costs extra money. The results of incorporating trees into the completed project are vastly superior. Trees soften architectural lines.
I have a problem with the 3 arborists reports in the environmental review documentation. None of these experts were asked to assess the groves current structure, function and financial contribution to the site. They were only asked to consider the proposed impacts of construction. A contract should have asked to place a quantitative valuation on the trees as an asset to the value of the real estate. If the District knew that these trees have an appraised value, they should let the citizens know how much money they are throwing away. The sawmill value is only a fraction of the net worth of the trees, yet even this value is overlooked. These trees are irreplaceable, yet plans proceed to scrap the inestimable contribution to the site, and to the community.
In the book, "Trees and Development" quoted by these expert arborists, the most significant point has been left out of these reports commissioned by the Seattle School District. That is, the arborist should be consulted prior to siting the building envelope. The District hired these arborists after the building design was complete. This is exactly the opposite of best management practices, which the newly adopted Facilities Management Plan says should be implemented. If asked, all of these arborists would have said the trees have considerable value that should not be ignored, and if possible, the building should be placed somewhere else. Why did the District fail to involve an arborist in the early planning stages of this project, prior to 2005? Probably because the flawed District policy places all power in the hands of the School Principal.
You see, when tree condemnations direct bulldozers to clear trees, all positive characteristics of the trees are negated. Even though the Ingraham Forest is better as an integral unit, carving out 3/4ths of the trees ends up crippling the potential success of the project.
Post a Comment