Over a year ago, I took a few pictures of Orpheus park. I took the photos because I was going use them to make the case that we should cut down some of the park's trees. Much more important issues came up and it was not until the Highway 101 tree issue surfaced that I went back into my archives for the old photos. I planned to pitch the idea of making a sacrificial offering to the arborists to appease them. They take the Orpheus trees and we keep the 101 trees.
Notice that the Orpheus park sign has a sunset on it. The most important intrinsic attribute of this park is the panoramic ocean view. It is perfect for sunsets. I'm sure the sunset potential of the location was recognized when the park was built. They even put in this really cool bench at the top of the knoll so you can sit and watch the sun go down.
The problem was that the city planted a bunch of trees right down the center of the view corridor. These trees obstructed the richest part of the horizon. The most important natural feature of the park had been crowed out by trees.
I am for cutting down the trees right in the middle of the park. Take a look at these photos. The first is from 2007.
This photo is from last night. Drew was sitting in the tree right down the middle. Once his tree gets cut down the views will be awesome. Take home message: Kevin C. does not want to save all these trees. Keep that in mind as you read some of the following burning questions.
- Does the city really have an agreement to keep the neighbors' views unobstructed?
- Since when does the city record important and costly agreements in their head instead of on paper?
- Was the public, or even the council, ever aware of the agreement?
- The neighbors were given some seriously valuable rights with the "agreement". What did the city get in return, and why on earth was that trade not documented? Was there something to hide?
- WHO has the authority to give the neighbors a view easement? I'd want the council to be involved in setting perpetual land use agreements.
- Why on earth did the city pay for the tree removal? Why not have the neighbors getting the fifty thousand dollar views pay to remove the trees?
- Since when does Dan Dalager care about the property values of park neighbors?
- Isn't Stocks famous for telling people that if they want a view they should have bought their neighbor's property to protect it?
- If there really was an agreement, why on earth wasn't that considered when the park was designed. Why were trees planted where they would encroach into the view easement?
- Is Barth micromanaging by questioning the process that resulted in the city paying to cut down its own trees for the benefit of the neighbors (who have no documentation of their view easement)?
- Do Jerome or Dalager ever question city hall management processes? When they do, is that micromanaging? There is a huge valley between oversight and micromanagement.
- How much is this protest costing taxpayers?
- Who obtains a VERY VALUABLE view easement without having it recorded? (Again, why the hell not? Was this just another good ol' boys agreement?)