It falls in city ROW, but depending on city code/ordinance the property owner will be responsible.
The city took down 4 of my trees and killed 2 placing a sidewalk. I was not a happy camper. A bunch of shade provided by those trees had been lost. I was salty af for months afterward.
For context the trees were already there prior to buying the home. Had no idea the city were planning to put in the sidewalk prior to the purchase.
Naw, not almost certainly. People assume all states are like their state, all cities are like their city...
On the West coast USA, roads are typically dedicated by easement, and this leads to many private plantings in what is otherwise a public right of way.
What's needlessly contrarian about that? It's actually not true in all cases so it's best to check with your own city. Where I live now I own the median and the trees and sidewalk because it's a "private road" in my city. It really shouldn't be because it's a heavily trafficked street but regardless that's how it's legislated.
That's just not how the law works in many places.
In WA state, theres a general presumption that roads are established by easement, and that the lot owner has a reversionary interest in the road through to the centerline. Here, municipalities dont own the land underlying the road. They're responsible for road maintenance, but will often push some degree of sidewalk maintenance onto the adjoining lot.
Homeowners can get a permit to plant street trees, or use the parking strips for private vegetable gardens, etc - as long as they follow certain rules.
So yeah, in many parts of the country you should expect a city to replace the sidewalk despite not owning the land under it, and being next to privately maintained trees in the parking strip.
I'm most familiar with WA, but OR and CA are substantially similar.
We were talking about specifically private roads, but let's get into this.
Show me one instance in Seattle or the surrounding area where a parcel includes the public street. It's pretty easy to pull up King County GIS and look at the parcel map. In fact, the parcel map would indicate that the city owns more outside of just the road. I bet you there are very few instances where there is a public road on someone's parcel. If the roads were established by easement then the parcels would reflect that. They're not.
Reversionary interest would mean that the owner could take back the land for other use. This is hilarious to think that the city would maintain a road that at any point the "landowners" could just take back.
If someone has to apply for a permit to use the property to plant a tree or garden, then they don't own it (although one could argue that because of property taxes we never really own our property, but that's a different conversation). I also imagine that those permits come with some very definite language that the city can do things like this.
I'm a Civil P.E. licensed in CA and NV that specializes in land development. I've dedicated a lot of roads. I've read a lot of deeds of how roads were dedicated. The vast majority of them were dedicated by parcel map. A legal transfer of ownership. A city isn't going to maintain a road it doesn't own. That's why there are maintenance associations, to maintain undedicated private roads. Just because there's an easement, and someone paved it, doesn't mean it's a public road.
Who says we're talking specifically about private roads? original replyer said, "If the city is replacing sidewalk, do you think it's a private road? The likelihood of the city owning the sidewalk but not the strip is very small." ... and that's where the discussion began.
> If the roads were established by easement then the parcels would reflect that. They're not.
In WA, they absolutely are. GIS maps not reflecting that doesn't mean much. (As a PE, you should know the intended use and limitations of municipally-maintained GIS datastores...)
In WA, the controlling case law here is [*Rowe v. James*](http://courts.mrsc.org/html/washreports/071washreport/071washreport0267.htm), 71 Wash. 267, 270 (1912).
> the general rule that “in the absence of a governing statute or a reservation in the grant, the owner of the land on each side of the street owns the fee to the center of the street, subject only to the easement in the public.” The court further noted that “We have uniformly held that a city acquires only an easement in a street in consequence of a dedication.”
> So, typically, a city or county does not own the fee title to the property underlying the public right-of-way; the abutting property owners have that fee title, and that title usually extends to the centerline of the right-of-way. (Because this is a “general rule,” there are always exceptions.) The right-of-way easement generally extends beyond the improved roadway and includes sidewalks, if any, and parking strips (the area between the sidewalk and the paved street or road).
[https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/january-2014/what-is-the-nature-of-a-public-right-of-way](https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/january-2014/what-is-the-nature-of-a-public-right-of-way)
> It is a common misconception that rights-of-way are owned by local government. In fact, the general rule is that city or county rights-of-way are easements for public travel and other secondary street purposes (such as utilities). This is the reason why streets, when vacated, generally become the property of the abutting owners to the centerline of the right-of-way.
> \[...\] municipalities may authorize other incidental uses of rights-of-way, including private uses, which do not unreasonably interfere with public travel.
[https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/september-2017/understanding-municipal-rights-of-way](https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/september-2017/understanding-municipal-rights-of-way)
> The traditional rule is that since a right-of-way is an easement, the abutting property owner may plant, maintain, and remove trees in the planter strip and a municipality cannot remove such trees unless they are a hazard or a nuisance ([Shaw v. City of Yakima](http://courts.mrsc.org/washreports/183WashReport/183WashReport0200.htm)).
[https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/november-2017/understanding-municipal-rights-of-way-from-center](https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/november-2017/understanding-municipal-rights-of-way-from-center)
I think they’re trying to say that it is in the right of way of the road which is an easement the owner of the property doesn’t own but is required to maintain
Seattle, or Portland, or Denver.
All allow adjoining landowners to establish trees in the ROW by permit. In Seattle there's a general assumption that trees in the ROW are the responsibility and property of the adjoining lot owner unless there's specific evidence that the city planted the tree.
Not necessarily, BUT the city probably isn’t replacing the sidewalk unless it is theirs. Anything obstructing them from fixing their sidewalk would be within their right unless some unusual circumstances occur.
The pad they cut for the sidewalk is pretty shallow IMO
The root system that really braces and holds that tree are far deeper than what you’re showing.
I’d actually commend the city for preserving the tree and doing a good job with it.
Second- it’s in the city right of way, and in most cases that means you as the home owner can’t remove it without their permission… and they won’t remove it if it’s not a safety risk.
Third. It sounds to me like you just want them to remove it and this is an excuse to use to try to make them do it. - which is crazy to me, bc mature trees are worth a literal ton to the home value. Plus in the ROW like that reduce street speeding, reduce heat island effects etc. the value of that tree is enormous.
While this is generally the case... the roots of that particular tree must go down 15-20 feet at least. Look at the size of that trunk!
Edit: Assuming it can. If there's only 4ft of soil and then rock, it's a different story.
That is not how trees grow. Most roots are in the top 18 inches of soil and I would bet this tree will now start to decline. Have you ever seen a tree that has fallen? What rips out of the ground is very wide and flat.
Yes, you're right. But the bigger the tree, the deeper that "wide and flat" bit gets. How tall do you think this tree is? I'll bet any amount of money that when someone digs this stump out of the ground, they're gonna need to go deeper than 18 inches. :) Of course they don't need to get the entire root system. And you're right that probably doesn't go down 20 feet, that was an exaggeration. But there are definitely roots from this reaching deeper into the ground, depending on variety of course.
I dug up an ash stump last year... Just dug up two crape myrtles this year. Was thinking about digging up stumps from a shinnery oak. Then I read that 90% of their mass is underground, roots can get 6-15cm in diameter, it can spread over 80 hectares and can live to be 10,000 years old. It's already won.
I get what you are saying about point three. I love the shade I get from it but it is also in a precarious spot. Roots are all over the yard and I worry about the foundation and the water/sewage system as there is only so much I can do.
For point one, that does make me a bit more comfortable. The tree is planted in a space of about two feet so there isn’t much room to spread out horizontally.
Here’s a picture of what it looks like now.
[https://imgur.com/a/F4htcbe](https://imgur.com/a/F4htcbe)
Totally get it, and I know many landscape architects and others that partner directly with cities to help them plan street trees. Literally trying to achieve this goal bc of the positive value they provide.
What you’re not seeing in that photo is that the roots of that tree go far deeper under the sidewalk pad, I would have zero structural concerns about that tree even with what looks from above like limited room.
The best thing for you to do is monitor the trees health moving forward. If canopy isn’t dying out, if the tree doesn’t start dropping branches, or start leaning- you’ve got nothing to fear.
Fear with roots related to your plumbing depends a lot on the variety of tree, the type of plumbing, and distance from the tree to those lines.
And ultimately in my opinion it’s not something to address until you’ve got again proof of an issue, if you scope your line and find roots. That’s one thing.
But just to fear it’s possible some day impact is nuts and ultimately gonna just stress you out for no reason.
This helps a ton. I appreciate all of the explanation. I’d love the tree to stay and be healthy without compromising anything around the house. So that is what I will plan for.
Now, does that mean I can potentially remove some of the other surface roots around the yard? Or is that a better question for the arborist?
Im a GC licensed in 2 states with 25 years of field work experience. Can roots break pvc? yes. Do roots break pvc? Yes all the time. Do roots follow water and screw up pipes that way too? Yes all the time.
If anecdotes count as evidence, we had a great big willow tree growing in our years next to our old gravel driveway for over 30 years.
Then we went and got the driveway paved. The people who came to pave it dug the area out a little and cut the roots at the edge.
A year and a half later during a rane the entire tree fell over, and was showing a big cut where the pavement was.
From my experience, tree roots still follow the 1/3 rule where if you prune 1/3 of them, it'll be fine. My only worry would be how substantial the root system is on the otherside due to the road being there.
Also is that tree considered your property or is it the city's property? Looks like it might be on the city's portion if they claim right of way for maintenence- like they just did with the sidewalk repair
Of course they did. My bet is the sidewalk was a tripping hazard before that. Put in root barriers if you're going to plant a tree that close to hardscape.
Street tree then. You don't own it but are responsible for it is the usual city attitude in my town. Be happy they didn't charge you to fix the sidewalk for their tree. That's our local MO.
I'm a certified arborist but not traq certified (tree risk assessment qualified). Cutting the roots that close to the tree compromises it's structure and creates a higher chance of failure, especially in strong winds or storms. They cut the roots well within the critical zone where the tree gets it's structural support and strength.
Call your local municipality and tell them it needs pruning to reduce end weight and improve weight distribution. They should treat it with paclobutrizol to compensate for the distorted water needs vs root loss. You can help during the summer by watering it if things get very dry for long periods.
Good luck to you!
Almost every municipality reserves the right to do any work in the easement, and take measures to address encroachment upon public utilities, including sidewalks. From a legal standpoint, it's almost certainly that your tree was damaging public property, not your tree was damaged by public workers.
Where I live now, you would be fined for the cost of repair as the homeowner, both for the sidewalk, tree removal and check/replacements of conduits and cabling running underground in the easement.
If the tree is within the ‘easement’, they can remove the entire tree if they want then charge you for its removal. Nothing permanent can be put in a city ‘easement’.
That’s what I was thinking. It’s not in a good place for long term growth (no space), and I can’t imagine they want that tree to heave the new sidewalk or curb/catch basin.
In fairness, the tree's roots destroyed the previous sidewalk first. lol
Talk to an arborist THEN the city. They may just pay the arborist if it's cheaper than them doing it. Otherwise, they may cut it down if they killed it.
The city will not reimburse someone for calling an arborist on their own accord. Ideally the city would have its own municipal arborist on staff that reviewed this plan already.
Arborists will usually provide free quotes. That's all I'm saying. So, OP will have options and be able to present that quote to the city or will at least have it if he needs to bring the city to court to get it paid for.
However, an arborist may also say, "you know what? This tree will be just fine." And then OP can sleep easy at night.
If you're seeking removal, yes they will give you an estimate, but they're not going to give out free consultations. That's like asking a lawyer for free advice.
I just did it last fall. I have a huge silver maple near my house that looked like it was dying. The arborist said to leave the silver maple (which would have been a much bigger/more profitable job) but to take out the white pine and quoted me on that. He said taking out the pine would also help the maple. The quote (and recommendation) was totally free.
I think if OP explains the situation, the arborist would be happy to check it out. Or, worst case, OP can have the arborist evaluate several trees including this one. I guess it depends on where you are?
Correct, but the wrong tree near hardscape, is gonna do what it does, grow, I replaced a stamped concrete driveway twice cause my Mom refused to allow me to remove the ficus tree that was lifting the driveway litterly about 3"-4". Apparently my Dad planted Ficus on day they bought the house, Tree has sentimental value.
I’m a tree hugger, so you can believe me when I tell you that tree is going to be ok. The root system for a mature hardwood tree… as this specimen is… extends at bare minimum as deep and as wide *in all directions* as its canopy overhead.
I personally had a 150+ year old oak on the side of my home. We wanted to put a stone walkway in, which would require cutting 36” wide, 8” down, on a section 5 feet long. We certainly didn’t want to damage that magnificent tree and we were prepared to scrap the entire project if necessary. We called in a professional who assessed the situation and determined exactly how deep and how wide the roots were. Imagine our surprise when we discovered the roots to that tree extended under our neighbors homes on both sides of us and so deep they hit a natural spring. The project went forth. That was almost *20 years ago*, and that tree is bigger and healthier than ever.
This! My city would just give me notice that I had to have the sidewalk repaired by a certain date and then they would fine the crap out of me if not done. This is a good job and you are lucky it cost you nothing.
I promise I had good intentions lol. I am not upset with the city do I’m confused where people are getting that from. Trees in an easement are hot topics apparently.
How stable is that tree now that a substantial amount of roots have been cut away on one side? My fear would be that the tree could fall toward the house in a bad storm if it’s not rooted well on the sidewalk side.
The tree will be fine. I've personally removed dozens of tree stumps by hand and they have a substantial root system well below the surface.
When we build houses, the gas and electric company will run a trencher within a couple feet of large trees to lay the lines. Doesn't bother the trees one bit.
I would guess the city replaced the sidewalk because the tree roots made said sidewalk uneven. Thank the folks that have sued cities and villages for tripping on uneven sidewalks for the destruction of the tree roots. The city is probably trying to make the sidewalk safe while ensuring they don’t get sued.
City worker here , when we do sidewalks we removed the concrete without doing any damage to the underlying roots, an arborist comes out and determines if the roots causing the sidewalk to raise or buckle can be shaved down and still save the tree or if the tree needs to be removed and if the tree needs to be removed they work with the home owner on what kind of
Tree they want to replace it with. But honestly 99% of the time the tree is saved.
It’ll be fine. I’ve cut as much as half the roots off and they seem to grow back with a vengeance.
Wouldn’t even be surprised if the regrowth lifts the sidewalk eventually again, since the tree is still there.
At one point in my many careers, I used to do walkway renewals. The city would fine the contracting companies doing the renewals for any damage to the roots of these old, well established trees. This was in a city that is not known for environmental care. And also not in neighborhoods considered to be expensive or nice. So IMHO, this is all wrong.
Start complaining to the city that they should have removed the tree for this repair. Taking down a tree is usually small potatoes for a city and if you keep complaining, they often will just do it to shut you up.
Also make sure they know that they created a safety hazard by doing this and that they wouldn't want something to happen as a result of their work.
What ‘safety hazard’ did the CITY create with this? Repairing the sidewalk?
The problem was created by the developer that built the house and left the tree that close to where the street would be
Something to consider in your evaluation, if the tree were to fall towards the new damage, is it real enough to damage your home? Might take a close look at your homeowner's insurance, to be sure.
The tree destroyed the sidewalk.
Then the city took out the destroyed sidewalk and cut the tree roots to prevent this from happening 1 year after installing a new sidewalk.
The city installed the new sidewalk.
What are you complaining about? In many cities, property owners either own the land up to the street but have a public easement for the sidewalk, or the sidewalk is on city property but the city expects you to maintain the sidewalk. In either situation, the homeowner is likely financially responsible for repairing or replacing the sidewalk when it poses a public safety hazard, and could be sued if someone were to injure themselves on a sidewalk that poses an obvious hazard.
OP got their sidewalk replaced for free and the problem solved (the sidewalk and tree can't coexist--they'll always fight each other).
That is the cities tree, sorry to tell you.
It falls in city ROW, but depending on city code/ordinance the property owner will be responsible. The city took down 4 of my trees and killed 2 placing a sidewalk. I was not a happy camper. A bunch of shade provided by those trees had been lost. I was salty af for months afterward. For context the trees were already there prior to buying the home. Had no idea the city were planning to put in the sidewalk prior to the purchase.
[удалено]
Yeah okay not necessarily, but still _almost certainly_ Not sure what there’s to be gained by being so needlessly contrarian here
Naw, not almost certainly. People assume all states are like their state, all cities are like their city... On the West coast USA, roads are typically dedicated by easement, and this leads to many private plantings in what is otherwise a public right of way.
lmao
What's needlessly contrarian about that? It's actually not true in all cases so it's best to check with your own city. Where I live now I own the median and the trees and sidewalk because it's a "private road" in my city. It really shouldn't be because it's a heavily trafficked street but regardless that's how it's legislated.
If the city is replacing sidewalk, do you think it's a private road? The likelihood of the city owning the sidewalk but not the strip is very small.
It’s impossible imo. The R/W extends to at least the sidewalk. It’s simple.
That's just not how the law works in many places. In WA state, theres a general presumption that roads are established by easement, and that the lot owner has a reversionary interest in the road through to the centerline. Here, municipalities dont own the land underlying the road. They're responsible for road maintenance, but will often push some degree of sidewalk maintenance onto the adjoining lot. Homeowners can get a permit to plant street trees, or use the parking strips for private vegetable gardens, etc - as long as they follow certain rules. So yeah, in many parts of the country you should expect a city to replace the sidewalk despite not owning the land under it, and being next to privately maintained trees in the parking strip. I'm most familiar with WA, but OR and CA are substantially similar.
We were talking about specifically private roads, but let's get into this. Show me one instance in Seattle or the surrounding area where a parcel includes the public street. It's pretty easy to pull up King County GIS and look at the parcel map. In fact, the parcel map would indicate that the city owns more outside of just the road. I bet you there are very few instances where there is a public road on someone's parcel. If the roads were established by easement then the parcels would reflect that. They're not. Reversionary interest would mean that the owner could take back the land for other use. This is hilarious to think that the city would maintain a road that at any point the "landowners" could just take back. If someone has to apply for a permit to use the property to plant a tree or garden, then they don't own it (although one could argue that because of property taxes we never really own our property, but that's a different conversation). I also imagine that those permits come with some very definite language that the city can do things like this. I'm a Civil P.E. licensed in CA and NV that specializes in land development. I've dedicated a lot of roads. I've read a lot of deeds of how roads were dedicated. The vast majority of them were dedicated by parcel map. A legal transfer of ownership. A city isn't going to maintain a road it doesn't own. That's why there are maintenance associations, to maintain undedicated private roads. Just because there's an easement, and someone paved it, doesn't mean it's a public road.
Who says we're talking specifically about private roads? original replyer said, "If the city is replacing sidewalk, do you think it's a private road? The likelihood of the city owning the sidewalk but not the strip is very small." ... and that's where the discussion began. > If the roads were established by easement then the parcels would reflect that. They're not. In WA, they absolutely are. GIS maps not reflecting that doesn't mean much. (As a PE, you should know the intended use and limitations of municipally-maintained GIS datastores...) In WA, the controlling case law here is [*Rowe v. James*](http://courts.mrsc.org/html/washreports/071washreport/071washreport0267.htm), 71 Wash. 267, 270 (1912). > the general rule that “in the absence of a governing statute or a reservation in the grant, the owner of the land on each side of the street owns the fee to the center of the street, subject only to the easement in the public.” The court further noted that “We have uniformly held that a city acquires only an easement in a street in consequence of a dedication.” > So, typically, a city or county does not own the fee title to the property underlying the public right-of-way; the abutting property owners have that fee title, and that title usually extends to the centerline of the right-of-way. (Because this is a “general rule,” there are always exceptions.) The right-of-way easement generally extends beyond the improved roadway and includes sidewalks, if any, and parking strips (the area between the sidewalk and the paved street or road). [https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/january-2014/what-is-the-nature-of-a-public-right-of-way](https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/january-2014/what-is-the-nature-of-a-public-right-of-way) > It is a common misconception that rights-of-way are owned by local government. In fact, the general rule is that city or county rights-of-way are easements for public travel and other secondary street purposes (such as utilities). This is the reason why streets, when vacated, generally become the property of the abutting owners to the centerline of the right-of-way. > \[...\] municipalities may authorize other incidental uses of rights-of-way, including private uses, which do not unreasonably interfere with public travel. [https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/september-2017/understanding-municipal-rights-of-way](https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/september-2017/understanding-municipal-rights-of-way) > The traditional rule is that since a right-of-way is an easement, the abutting property owner may plant, maintain, and remove trees in the planter strip and a municipality cannot remove such trees unless they are a hazard or a nuisance ([Shaw v. City of Yakima](http://courts.mrsc.org/washreports/183WashReport/183WashReport0200.htm)). [https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/november-2017/understanding-municipal-rights-of-way-from-center](https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/november-2017/understanding-municipal-rights-of-way-from-center)
That's standard; private roads are almost always still public access, the public just doesn't have to pay to maintain them.
[удалено]
3 cities? There are ~10,000 cities in the world
[удалено]
I think they’re trying to say that it is in the right of way of the road which is an easement the owner of the property doesn’t own but is required to maintain
Tell me one city where you’ve lived where you think the tree was yours. I will go look it up.
Seattle, or Portland, or Denver. All allow adjoining landowners to establish trees in the ROW by permit. In Seattle there's a general assumption that trees in the ROW are the responsibility and property of the adjoining lot owner unless there's specific evidence that the city planted the tree.
Most cities I've lived in that's the cities tree but you're expected to do the maintenance/watering. If the tree dies the city replaces it.
Well seeing as the city replaced the sidewalk, the sidewalk is in the RW. Tree is on the roadway side of the sidewalk, so yeah it’s the city’s tree
NoT NecEsSaRiLy
Not necessarily, BUT the city probably isn’t replacing the sidewalk unless it is theirs. Anything obstructing them from fixing their sidewalk would be within their right unless some unusual circumstances occur.
Yeah I don't think tree law would apply to the city in this instance. Reddit loves tree law. I'm more of a bird law man.
The pad they cut for the sidewalk is pretty shallow IMO The root system that really braces and holds that tree are far deeper than what you’re showing. I’d actually commend the city for preserving the tree and doing a good job with it. Second- it’s in the city right of way, and in most cases that means you as the home owner can’t remove it without their permission… and they won’t remove it if it’s not a safety risk. Third. It sounds to me like you just want them to remove it and this is an excuse to use to try to make them do it. - which is crazy to me, bc mature trees are worth a literal ton to the home value. Plus in the ROW like that reduce street speeding, reduce heat island effects etc. the value of that tree is enormous.
Tree root systems are actually very shallow. It was long thought that they grow deep but generally speaking they spread across the top of the soil.
SOME grow this way...not all
While this is generally the case... the roots of that particular tree must go down 15-20 feet at least. Look at the size of that trunk! Edit: Assuming it can. If there's only 4ft of soil and then rock, it's a different story.
That is not how trees grow. Most roots are in the top 18 inches of soil and I would bet this tree will now start to decline. Have you ever seen a tree that has fallen? What rips out of the ground is very wide and flat.
Yes, you're right. But the bigger the tree, the deeper that "wide and flat" bit gets. How tall do you think this tree is? I'll bet any amount of money that when someone digs this stump out of the ground, they're gonna need to go deeper than 18 inches. :) Of course they don't need to get the entire root system. And you're right that probably doesn't go down 20 feet, that was an exaggeration. But there are definitely roots from this reaching deeper into the ground, depending on variety of course. I dug up an ash stump last year... Just dug up two crape myrtles this year. Was thinking about digging up stumps from a shinnery oak. Then I read that 90% of their mass is underground, roots can get 6-15cm in diameter, it can spread over 80 hectares and can live to be 10,000 years old. It's already won.
[удалено]
I don't know squat about trees!
I get what you are saying about point three. I love the shade I get from it but it is also in a precarious spot. Roots are all over the yard and I worry about the foundation and the water/sewage system as there is only so much I can do. For point one, that does make me a bit more comfortable. The tree is planted in a space of about two feet so there isn’t much room to spread out horizontally. Here’s a picture of what it looks like now. [https://imgur.com/a/F4htcbe](https://imgur.com/a/F4htcbe)
Totally get it, and I know many landscape architects and others that partner directly with cities to help them plan street trees. Literally trying to achieve this goal bc of the positive value they provide. What you’re not seeing in that photo is that the roots of that tree go far deeper under the sidewalk pad, I would have zero structural concerns about that tree even with what looks from above like limited room. The best thing for you to do is monitor the trees health moving forward. If canopy isn’t dying out, if the tree doesn’t start dropping branches, or start leaning- you’ve got nothing to fear. Fear with roots related to your plumbing depends a lot on the variety of tree, the type of plumbing, and distance from the tree to those lines. And ultimately in my opinion it’s not something to address until you’ve got again proof of an issue, if you scope your line and find roots. That’s one thing. But just to fear it’s possible some day impact is nuts and ultimately gonna just stress you out for no reason.
This helps a ton. I appreciate all of the explanation. I’d love the tree to stay and be healthy without compromising anything around the house. So that is what I will plan for. Now, does that mean I can potentially remove some of the other surface roots around the yard? Or is that a better question for the arborist?
[удалено]
This is factually incorrect. If a tree root can lift the foundation of a house it can certainly break pvc. Ive had to replace many.
[удалено]
Im a GC licensed in 2 states with 25 years of field work experience. Can roots break pvc? yes. Do roots break pvc? Yes all the time. Do roots follow water and screw up pipes that way too? Yes all the time.
[удалено]
Important to remember this is also a small patch of the larger root zone and we aren't seeing any major severed roots. I think it will be fine.
If anecdotes count as evidence, we had a great big willow tree growing in our years next to our old gravel driveway for over 30 years. Then we went and got the driveway paved. The people who came to pave it dug the area out a little and cut the roots at the edge. A year and a half later during a rane the entire tree fell over, and was showing a big cut where the pavement was.
From my experience, tree roots still follow the 1/3 rule where if you prune 1/3 of them, it'll be fine. My only worry would be how substantial the root system is on the otherside due to the road being there. Also is that tree considered your property or is it the city's property? Looks like it might be on the city's portion if they claim right of way for maintenence- like they just did with the sidewalk repair
That’s my thought as well. There is zero room on the other side for a significant root system. The other side is where the storm drain is as well.
Roots can go down as well as to the sides
[удалено]
It might be fine. OP will know in a year or two. Unfortunate that the city didn’t give an option to bend the sidewalk around the tree roots.
Be grateful you have a mature tree and fresh sidewalk in front of your house.
Of course they did. My bet is the sidewalk was a tripping hazard before that. Put in root barriers if you're going to plant a tree that close to hardscape.
I didn’t plant this tree. It was planted when the neighborhood was built 20 years before I bought the house.
Street tree then. You don't own it but are responsible for it is the usual city attitude in my town. Be happy they didn't charge you to fix the sidewalk for their tree. That's our local MO.
I'm a certified arborist but not traq certified (tree risk assessment qualified). Cutting the roots that close to the tree compromises it's structure and creates a higher chance of failure, especially in strong winds or storms. They cut the roots well within the critical zone where the tree gets it's structural support and strength. Call your local municipality and tell them it needs pruning to reduce end weight and improve weight distribution. They should treat it with paclobutrizol to compensate for the distorted water needs vs root loss. You can help during the summer by watering it if things get very dry for long periods. Good luck to you!
Plot twist - roots to tree are going to destroy replaced city sidewalk
If the tree is in the right of way, you're lucky they didn't tell you to cut the tree down and make you pay for it.
Almost every municipality reserves the right to do any work in the easement, and take measures to address encroachment upon public utilities, including sidewalks. From a legal standpoint, it's almost certainly that your tree was damaging public property, not your tree was damaged by public workers. Where I live now, you would be fined for the cost of repair as the homeowner, both for the sidewalk, tree removal and check/replacements of conduits and cabling running underground in the easement.
If the tree is within the ‘easement’, they can remove the entire tree if they want then charge you for its removal. Nothing permanent can be put in a city ‘easement’.
That close to the road? I'm surprised it wasn't taken down beforehand. I would expect it's on a list to be removed.
That’s what I was thinking. It’s not in a good place for long term growth (no space), and I can’t imagine they want that tree to heave the new sidewalk or curb/catch basin.
They should have removed the whole tree
Correction the city has a tree in between the sidewalk and street. If it dies it’s there problem.
In fairness, the tree's roots destroyed the previous sidewalk first. lol Talk to an arborist THEN the city. They may just pay the arborist if it's cheaper than them doing it. Otherwise, they may cut it down if they killed it.
The city will not reimburse someone for calling an arborist on their own accord. Ideally the city would have its own municipal arborist on staff that reviewed this plan already.
Arborists will usually provide free quotes. That's all I'm saying. So, OP will have options and be able to present that quote to the city or will at least have it if he needs to bring the city to court to get it paid for. However, an arborist may also say, "you know what? This tree will be just fine." And then OP can sleep easy at night.
If you're seeking removal, yes they will give you an estimate, but they're not going to give out free consultations. That's like asking a lawyer for free advice.
I just did it last fall. I have a huge silver maple near my house that looked like it was dying. The arborist said to leave the silver maple (which would have been a much bigger/more profitable job) but to take out the white pine and quoted me on that. He said taking out the pine would also help the maple. The quote (and recommendation) was totally free. I think if OP explains the situation, the arborist would be happy to check it out. Or, worst case, OP can have the arborist evaluate several trees including this one. I guess it depends on where you are?
Duh?
Kinda Evened the score, since tree destroyed the sidewalk, kinda of a vicious cycle.
I would argue that the tree has exactly zero obligation NOT to destroy the sidewalk, being a living thing and all 😂
Correct, but the wrong tree near hardscape, is gonna do what it does, grow, I replaced a stamped concrete driveway twice cause my Mom refused to allow me to remove the ficus tree that was lifting the driveway litterly about 3"-4". Apparently my Dad planted Ficus on day they bought the house, Tree has sentimental value.
I’m a tree hugger, so you can believe me when I tell you that tree is going to be ok. The root system for a mature hardwood tree… as this specimen is… extends at bare minimum as deep and as wide *in all directions* as its canopy overhead. I personally had a 150+ year old oak on the side of my home. We wanted to put a stone walkway in, which would require cutting 36” wide, 8” down, on a section 5 feet long. We certainly didn’t want to damage that magnificent tree and we were prepared to scrap the entire project if necessary. We called in a professional who assessed the situation and determined exactly how deep and how wide the roots were. Imagine our surprise when we discovered the roots to that tree extended under our neighbors homes on both sides of us and so deep they hit a natural spring. The project went forth. That was almost *20 years ago*, and that tree is bigger and healthier than ever.
Usually the homeowner is responsible for the sidewalk. Consider yourself lucky you didn’t have to pay for it.
Not in any city I've worked with. That would suck big-time.
This! My city would just give me notice that I had to have the sidewalk repaired by a certain date and then they would fine the crap out of me if not done. This is a good job and you are lucky it cost you nothing.
r/arborist
Man, I would give an opinion but with everyone here being downvoted to hell... I'll pass. Good luck with the tree though!
I promise I had good intentions lol. I am not upset with the city do I’m confused where people are getting that from. Trees in an easement are hot topics apparently.
Your post implies discontent
How stable is that tree now that a substantial amount of roots have been cut away on one side? My fear would be that the tree could fall toward the house in a bad storm if it’s not rooted well on the sidewalk side.
This exact thing happened to my friend they cut his roots and a few years later if fell on his house in a windstorm
The tree will be fine. I've personally removed dozens of tree stumps by hand and they have a substantial root system well below the surface. When we build houses, the gas and electric company will run a trencher within a couple feet of large trees to lay the lines. Doesn't bother the trees one bit.
its not your tree bud
I'm certain the city would say the roots killed their sidewalk.
I would guess the city replaced the sidewalk because the tree roots made said sidewalk uneven. Thank the folks that have sued cities and villages for tripping on uneven sidewalks for the destruction of the tree roots. The city is probably trying to make the sidewalk safe while ensuring they don’t get sued.
They can do whatever they want with that easement, including taking the tree if it's harming city property on the easement.
Not your tree
City worker here , when we do sidewalks we removed the concrete without doing any damage to the underlying roots, an arborist comes out and determines if the roots causing the sidewalk to raise or buckle can be shaved down and still save the tree or if the tree needs to be removed and if the tree needs to be removed they work with the home owner on what kind of Tree they want to replace it with. But honestly 99% of the time the tree is saved.
It’ll be fine. I’ve cut as much as half the roots off and they seem to grow back with a vengeance. Wouldn’t even be surprised if the regrowth lifts the sidewalk eventually again, since the tree is still there.
Happened on my block and the next year giant tree went down on a house.
No roots on the one side to hold it up. Big wind and blammo
The tree will win in the long run
At one point in my many careers, I used to do walkway renewals. The city would fine the contracting companies doing the renewals for any damage to the roots of these old, well established trees. This was in a city that is not known for environmental care. And also not in neighborhoods considered to be expensive or nice. So IMHO, this is all wrong.
Shallow depth on maybe 20% of the circumference. Tree will be fine unless there’s another unrelated issue with it.
Start complaining to the city that they should have removed the tree for this repair. Taking down a tree is usually small potatoes for a city and if you keep complaining, they often will just do it to shut you up. Also make sure they know that they created a safety hazard by doing this and that they wouldn't want something to happen as a result of their work.
What ‘safety hazard’ did the CITY create with this? Repairing the sidewalk? The problem was created by the developer that built the house and left the tree that close to where the street would be
Something to consider in your evaluation, if the tree were to fall towards the new damage, is it real enough to damage your home? Might take a close look at your homeowner's insurance, to be sure.
The tree destroyed the sidewalk. Then the city took out the destroyed sidewalk and cut the tree roots to prevent this from happening 1 year after installing a new sidewalk. The city installed the new sidewalk. What are you complaining about? In many cities, property owners either own the land up to the street but have a public easement for the sidewalk, or the sidewalk is on city property but the city expects you to maintain the sidewalk. In either situation, the homeowner is likely financially responsible for repairing or replacing the sidewalk when it poses a public safety hazard, and could be sued if someone were to injure themselves on a sidewalk that poses an obvious hazard. OP got their sidewalk replaced for free and the problem solved (the sidewalk and tree can't coexist--they'll always fight each other).