To the Editor:

At last week’s Council meeting the revised ordinance came up for review and public comment. At that meeting I thanked Council and Shade Tree Commission (STC) members for all the volunteer hours they had spent on this new comprehensive ordinance. I had suggestions to make:

Replacement Plan for trees sect .22-13d

Cost of the permit sect 22-13g

Cost of contractors registration fee sect 22-19

Dead trees (or dying ones), large ones or small, do not seem to be addressed. I felt that they should not be treated in the same way as live trees to be felled. A homeowner should not have to pay for a permit when a tree is dead or dying and in dangerous condition. The town arborist might even encourage a home owner to take the tree down and make the permit free; she should also ask them to consider replanting where possible.

As an incentive to re-plant, STC could offer a free tree or $25. At the moment, given the presentation in the ordinance, it reads as rather dictatorial. STC needs to communicate firmly but not aggressively with homeowners. Huge trees cost thousands of dollars to remove; this could soften the blow.

Live trees: the permit should be $25 (cost need not keep pace with our taxes.)

Contractors need to read the ordinance. They will receive a copy when they register to work in our town. A large fine should be levied when they work unregistered.

To sum up, most of our citizens love trees, love this town and community. We are responsible. We do not all own a pot of gold to give lots of trees to others to compensate for tree removal. Just because we have had to lose a tree maybe due to leaf scorch or emerald ash borer, should we be given another burden to contend with?

Our taxes pay for our staff, so let’s not put residents’ backs up and fuel law suits by charging them for staff services that could be levied by STC if this ordinance is passed in its present form.

Lindy Eiref (alias Catherine)

Dodds Lane, 13 years on Princeton Townstop STC