I attended that meeting and watched the process. I can't tell you how gratifying it was to see the Historic Preservation Commission really doing their job, and doing it well. They listened to the community's overwhelming response to protect this venerable and protected rare Garry Oak, and to seriously question the regional arborist's recommendation to remove tree because of a branch falling, when the deeper experts on tree risk assessment recommended retrenchment and pruning--NOT REMOVAL.
The city's contracted arborist also works for Olympia and Lacey (and maybe the County too?)....and he wields FAR too much power in decisions about our entire region's tree protections (or not). I've interacted with a few of these decisions which were extremely development friendly and definitely not protective to regional old trees which could have been protected easily and strategically...and for which the city's own tree codes are NOT being enforced.
He's definitely to be questioned....and it seemed clear to me at the HPC meeting that he was speaking for the insurance company that 'recommends' removal. Surprise. They don't value history, they value their bottom line only, and it's disappointing to see an arborist who isn't supposed to be about representing insurance companies, failing to represent the tree's natural right to exist.
But beyond arborist MacFarland's checkered history of tree protection--a Garry Oak has a lifespan of 500 years, meaning that this one may have another 100 years to live, bringing joy to our residents and visitors.
Nobody gets 'eliminated' from society when they lose a limb, this beloved and most valuable tree shouldn't either.
Please explain the inappropriate content below.
