The city walked right into the criticism on this one.
That said, as stinging as the criticism has been — from local residents to radio talk show hosts — the city’s tree ordinance does not need to be uprooted. In fact, like the trees the Collards trimmed, what the law needs is some pruning.
It’s important to remember that in March the City Council beefed up the existing tree ordinance, which was designed to protect species such as oak, bay and sycamore trees.
The old ordinance, in place since 1982, penalized the violator the assessed value of the tree. In the tweaked version earlier this year, the trimmer pays a fine of twice the assessed value of the tree, and ultimately could go to prison.
The intent was and still is noble. The law protects the trees from promiscuous chopping and seeks to protect the landscape and the environment.
Councilman Frank Quintero in March called the stricter ordinance a step in the right direction.
But in an attempt to make the law clearer, the amended ordinance missed an important nuance. Somewhere in between the code’s terms prohibiting one from damaging trees in a plethora of ways and applying for a permit, the line between the intent to maliciously destroy or damage a tree and simply not knowing about the law was blurred. Within that blurry boundary, the penalties became rigid and exorbitant.
As the council reconsiders this ordinance, creating a penalty that is proportionate with the crime is a good place to start.
One striking fact is the extent of control that private tree-trimming contractors have over this process.
