Deep-rooted resentment
Homeowners, tired of footing bill, seek to transfer tree care back to city
“I have never met a resident of my district or any other district that says, ‘It’s a great idea to dump trees on property owners.’ ”
Supervisor Scott Wiener, who proposes a tax to fund tree maintenance
It was just after midnight when John Wilson’s house started shaking, a sensation akin to the tremors of an earthquake.
He and his husband woke up disoriented and confused. Then they looked out the window. A 25-foot-long tree limb had crashed into their back porch, causing minor damage. But the fallen limb wasn’t the first time the couple had narrowly escaped a tree-related tragedy.
Two years ago, a limb knocked the gutters and pipes off the back of their Upper Market home. Another time, a gargantuan limb plummeted into their backyard and took weeks for city Public Works crews to move. And this fall, a eucalyptus tree slammed into a neighbor’s car parked on the street, totaling it.
“We are living in fear,” Wilson said. “Every time the wind kicks up or there’s a big storm, I’m waiting with my fingers crossed for something to happen. You look at the trees and think, when is this going to fall?”
The trees bordering Wil-
son’s home, which are owned by the city, are just a few of nearly 105,000 street trees that are serviced infrequently. The city’s Public Works Department can’t afford to maintain the trees and has transferred thousands of them to property owners through the tree relinquishment program, which started in 2011. But neighbors often don’t want to take on the responsibility.
Seeking to shift upkeep
It’s a problem that Supervisor Scott Wiener is trying to solve.
Wiener has proposed a parcel tax that would fund a tree maintenance program and cue the transfer of tree ownership back to the city. The tax would vary depending on the property — single-family homeowners would pay $30, while condominium owners would pay $20 per unit, and larger commercial buildings would pay a heftier sum based on the number of occupants.
“The trees need stable funding,” Wiener said. “I have never met a resident of my district or any other district that says, ‘It’s a great idea to dump trees on property owners.’ Usually on any issue, you can find someone who has a contrary point of view. Everyone thinks it’s pretty unfair and wants the system to be fixed.”
Homeowners resentful
San Francisco has one of the smallest urban tree canopies in the nation, and also, critics argue, one of the worst maintained.
Public Works cares for 32,000 of the city’s — the other 73,000 are privately owned. But the agency only has 11 arborists on staff, down from 18 in 2005, which means trees get pruned only once every 10 to 12 years. It would take $20 million — 10 times the Public Works’ current tree maintenance budget — to shear the city’s trees every three to five years, the recommended service schedule.
Instead, the city has also been transferring the trees to property owners, who oftentimes don’t want them because of the costs of pruning and repairing sidewalk damage. So far, about 7,600 street trees have been transferred to property owners through the tree relinquishment program. Public Works will transfer 14,000 more trees within the next few years.
“I hear a huge amount of resentment, neighbors saying, why is the city doing this?” said Dan Flanagan, director of Friends of the Urban Forest, which helps residents plant and maintain trees in the city. “Our greatest fear is some people will say, ‘I don’t care,’ and they’ll do a bad pruning job, and the tree will die or someone will get injured by a falling branch. You lose the investment of 40 years. Everyone loses in that situation.”
Currently, San Francisco has a 13.7 percent canopy cover and ranks 17th among the 20 most populous cities in the nation, Flanagan said, just behind San Jose. Memphis came in first.
‘Something needs to change’
Trees were bumped to the bottom of the list when funding cuts were made during the 2008 financial crisis, Wiener said. Now, they can’t compete against health, public safety, senior programs and other services. The parcel tax will probably appear on the ballot in November and require a two-thirds majority vote to pass.
“Right now, our tree care gets a D-minus at best,” he said. “We want to take away this tension where people are hesitant to allow a tree to be planted in front of their house because they don’t want to take care of it. It creates a dysfunctional situation where too many residents are distrustful, and the trees aren’t cared for.”
Matt O’Grady, executive director of the Parks Alliance, a nonprofit that supports the city’s parks and a member of Wiener’s task force looking at the parcel tax, said he spends thousands of dollars each year to maintain the tree in front of his home. But he said he would rather pay a parcel tax and have the city assume responsibility.
“It’s an essential function that trees, particularly in a streetside setting, need occasional maintenance to be able to flourish,” he said. “It’s more efficient to have the city do that. San Francisco is well below where it ought to be.”
Many neighbors are fed up with the situation, said Jim Riley, an Outer Richmond resident who had 45-year-old city trees transferred to him in 2014. He spends $2,000 or more every year to maintain the trees.
“I don’t have a problem maintaining anything,” Riley said. “I keep my yard, my house and my sidewalk pristine. But the city is essentially transferring its incompetence, and the liability that goes with that, to homeowners. These trees shouldn’t be our problem. Something needs to change.”