Tree ordinaces in most towns and cities are a solution looking for a problem. People do not cut down trees unless they have a very good reason and we now have many more trees than were originally here. A case can be made that neighbors trees actually create problems by blocking the sun, dropping litter, raising fences and patios, and presenting safety hazards (dropped limbs or the tree actually falling). I am not suggesting an ordinance to solve these problems, but in this era of reduced staff we shouldn't waste their time criminalizing residents over trees.

The crime here is that cutting your own trees is a crime in the first place. If the city wants to tell me what to do with my trees, then the city should assume responsibility for "my" trees' care because the trees really no longer belong to me - the trees belong to the city or the county.

Marge Parkhurst

How is it the Woodside Council made the decision and not the COUNTY?
This sounds very fortunate for Mr. Wimmer when I have heard of people similar to her, having had their trees demolished by neighbors who hired illegals through a major service and then left the owner to pay a LOT more and being accused of instigating the destruction herself.
As if turned out, the perpetrators were connected to the victim and made her pay a LOT more even though she was out of town when the incident occured.
This does not sound right to me.

Woodside has jurisdiction because Article 11 of the California Constitution gives authority for Local Jurisdiction of City Charters and Ordinances to supersede other local governing authorities such as counties.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?