Mailbag

If city wants to save trees, then it can pay

I have followed the tree trimming issue and I’m sorry that this well-intentioned ordinance has taken a bad direction (“City looks to close tree fine issues,” Thursday). I do agree that the imposition of huge fines should have been reviewed by senior staff members before they were imposed.

Since it appears that the city may have difficulty with the explanation or enforcement of this ordinance, I would simply suggest that all Glendale residents refrain from the trimming or removal of any trees on their property. Why should any property owner run the risk of being fined by the city? If the city feels strongly about trees, then the city should take all responsibility for their care and maintenance.

Why should Glendale residents live in fear of some vague “Big Brother” ordinance that characterizes them as criminals for maintaining trees on their property? If Glendale Water & Power, the Fire Department or some other city department determines that a tree or trees should be trimmed, then those departments should pay for the work by a city-approved contractor who will comply with the ordinance. After all, those departments get plenty of tax-payer dollars.

Likewise, any developer who wishes to remove any tree should simply contact the city for approval. If approved, the removal should be done by a city-approved contractor at the city’s expense with proper supervision by a city employee, to avoid any developer liability.

If the city wants to protect the trees, then the city should pay for it, and get off the backs of Glendale residents who should not be asked to assume risk or liability for attempting to comply with a well-intentioned but unfair and punitive ordinance.

SCOTT LINDER

Glendale

Campaign offices just added an extra step

Providing absentee applications to registered voters has shown itself to be a very effective tool for those seeking elective office (“Absentee ballot process will change,” Thursday). Its potential impact on an election makes it incumbent on any candidate with the financial resources to do so to utilize this campaign tool, even if the candidate may not personally feel that it should be allowed.