Topping Redwood Trees

[CarlosOakland]

I am trying to get advice about topping redwood trees. The trees were burned in the Oakland fire in 1991 and grew back and are about 300 feet in front of my property and are now blocking my view, a beautiful view of the San Francisco Bay Bridge and San Francisco skyline.
I would like the redwoods removed, but other neighbors have complained that they screen their homes, but the neighbors would not mind if they were topped.
I get a lot of opinions, for and against, topping redwood trees. I understand the argument of SAFETY for branches falling on homes that are near redwood trees. But there are not any houses within 300 feet from these trees. They are planted on vacant land several acres in area.
I'd like to get a few registered arborists to verify to the City of Oakland and to the owner of the property that topping the trees is feasible.
Or some articles or cases, any thing to make my case to the City of Oakland and get my view back.
Carlos

 

[brydan]

The inherent problem of planting the world's tallest tree in urban areas. I used to work in San Francisco, lot of topped and chopped Redwoods. They turn into a mess and you're going to have a crew out there regularly pruning to maintain the view. An alternative that was done a lot in the north bay is to "vista prune". Let the tree grow and just remove the branches blocking the view. Yes the trunk is still there, but you retain 95% of the view at a fraction of the maintenance. Substantially better too for the trees in the long run.

 

[CarlosOakland]

Problem with the "vista prune" is that all the branches at the top block the view. Here's a couple of shots

 

[CarlosOakland]

Also, the view is so valuable, I don't mind having to regularly prune after a topping. I just need to get some expert arborist witness to tell the City of Oakland that redwood trees can be topped.

 

[Anawan]

You need to ‘top’ your settler colonial mentality that thinks you own trees and have a right to a view. People are going hungry. They have no place to live. Particularly in your neck of the woods. Get some perspective.

 

[rico]

Fuck the Redwoods...I need my view!

Can't tell you how many Redwood topping jobs I have walked away from in my life. Its a horrible practice which will ruin the trees and create a never ending maintenance hassle...

Find yourself a good local tree-man who can do a PROPER vista pruning, in which they selectively remove every 4th-6th branch to create a lacy see through look..Done hundreds of them in my life and they look and function amazingly well.. You are one of the fortunate few who is graced to have Redwoods in your life so my advice would be to co-exist with them.....

 

[CarlosOakland]

Irrelevant response, Anawan. I wasn't expecting a political lecture on my desire or "right" to have a view. I never said I owned the trees. I do not. The owner of the land owns the trees. It is not morally wrong to want a nice view. Just like it is not morally wrong to have a dinner in a restaurant while some people are going hungry. And is it morally right for you to own your own house while people are homeless, "no place to live?" This is not going to cost the city or you taxpayers any money. I do have perspective. Topping trees has nothing to do with world hunger or homelessness. Not relevant at all.

 

[CarlosOakland]

How does topping ruin a tree?

 

[rico]

It radically changes the way Redwoods naturally grow. I should also point out that it creates an unsafe tree because the new top/tops that sprout from the topping cut will be structurally unsound. Many time the act of topping will also bring rot into the tree.

As I said, its a horrible practice..

 

[oldoakman]

I have to side with Anawan and Rico on this one. There are numerous legal cases that have been brought involving removal and "pruning/topping" for views. Might be easier to find another place to live with the view you want and no trees to complicate the issue.

 

[JaredDTS]

I'd rather look at the trees than whats behind them. You probably won't find an ethical arborist to agree topping them is justifiable just for your view as mentioned above.

 

[TreeVB]

Also, the view is so valuable, I don't mind having to regularly prune after a topping. I just need to get some expert arborist witness to tell the City of Oakland that redwood trees can be topped.

I would listen to the expert Arborists above as it has been sound advice so far. There is no such thing as an "expert Arborist" that will say the trees need to be topped.

 

[evo]

I am trying to get advice about topping redwood trees. The trees were burned in the Oakland fire in 1991 and grew back and are about 300 feet in front of my property and are now blocking my view, a beautiful view of the San Francisco Bay Bridge and San Francisco skyline.
I would like the redwoods removed, but other neighbors have complained that they screen their homes, but the neighbors would not mind if they were topped.
I get a lot of opinions, for and against, topping redwood trees. I understand the argument of SAFETY for branches falling on homes that are near redwood trees. But there are not any houses within 300 feet from these trees. They are planted on vacant land several acres in area.
I'd like to get a few registered arborists to verify to the City of Oakland and to the owner of the property that topping the trees is feasible.
Or some articles or cases, any thing to make my case to the City of Oakland and get my view back.
Carlos

You sir are an asshole. You are after ruining property which isn’t yours for your personal gain. It’s pretty clear that these trees don’t belong to you, and any Arborist you hire to assess the trees could end up with trespass charges. You cannot truly assess a tree without walking up to it and 360 degrees.

 

[flushcut]

Meh, just cut down your neighbors trees and get sued. I am sure there many a tree hugging tree loving arborist who would put a several hundred thousand dollar price tag on replacement per tree in a court battle. IMO since they are not your trees, OP, you have no say in their care.

 

[CarlosOakland]

OK, enough said. I tried.

 

[evo]

OK, enough said. I tried.

yeah an I tried to sell an ounce of coke to a 8 year old once too...

 

[rico]

OK, enough said. I tried.

Please don't dismiss the proper vista pruning I described earlier.. When done right the Redwoods will look very natural, and you will have a see through view of the Bay Bridge and the SF skyline.

If I wasn't sooo busy I would come down and do it for you. It would cost you a life time supply of Everett and Jone BBQ though....

 

[Tom Dunlap]

@CarlosOakland

in your OP you said that you’ve gotten opinions on what to do with the trees. Take a moment and look at the source and knowledge of those opinions




somehow you ended up here in the midst of people who have dedicated their lives to Treecare. Some are sEcond and third generation practitioners. Think about the value of this knowledge source. Now you’re not getting opinions. You’re getting advice.
Making the case for whether advice or opinion is a more solid base for a decision is very easy. You’re not going to find a credible source for advice that would gain you support from the City of Oakland. You must know that you aren’t the first one to consider this situation.

Have you done a literature search for topping trees? Have you found even one credible source that advocates this solution? If you have please do me, and the rest of us, a huge favor and share a link

Dr Alex Shigo said: Anyone not practicing Modern Arborculture is not allowed to visit a modern dentist

would you have dental work done in an office with belt driven grinders?

vista pruning like Rico and others are advocating is the Modern solution. Much less painful!

 

[oldoakman]

Bravo Tom.

 

[cerviarborist]

When I was a boy, we had to walk 27 miles through the festering Florida swamps to get to a dentist who used an old angle grinder and a rusty screwdriver. And we were thankful.