Tag: urban forestry

• Yes. I don't agree with some of the policies but I do appreciate that we have a lot of beautiful tree lined streets. The 152 gateway is such a wonderful welcome to our community too! • Yes, hopefully. I believe now they are doing their homework and are planting trees that will not cause thousands of dollars to homeowners in 20 years by planting trees that uproot their sidewalks. Didn’t the City’s arborists think of researching tree root patterns back in the ’60s and ’70s? • In general, yes. However, the city is too aggressive in removing existing trees that are perceived as a potential liability due to possible failure – the massive Rainbow Park oak as an example. Apparently, placing a fence around the tree canopy wasn’t good enough. The city should not feel compelled to idiot-proof all facilities – the iron fence around the city skate park is yet another example of failed overkill. Unless the tree presents an imminent threat, leave it! Odds are it will survive for years to come. • Yes. If Santa Teresa is any indication ... however, I wish new developments were required to install more trees. • Yes. From what I've seen the street trees are well-groomed, not blocking any signs, and there are some new plantings on First Street. • Yes, for the most part. We are known as one of the best tree cities in America. We could stand to be rid of trees like the Palo Alto Liquid Amber planted many years ago in certain neighborhoods. They look nice, but have horrible, large burrs that litter the streets where they are still located. Their root system also ruins the sidewalks with upheaval and serious cracks. • Not quite. Why is the Santa Teresa corridor so over-planted? Did anyone realize that shrubs actually grow when they planted double the amount necessary? Now many should be transplanted elsewhere – are they going to do that? • No, it’s OK, but has fallen off like so many city programs. Gilroy should have a model urban forestry program.