Norris cuts down historic elm tree over safety issues
-
A tree service began the process of cutting down the old elm tree in the Norris City Commons on Monday morning, and all that was left by the end of the day was a 12-foot-high section of the hollowed-out main trunk. - G. Chambers Williams III
-
These parts of the trunk of the historic Norris elm tree, on the ground after the tree was cut down Monday, show some of the decay that led to the decision to chop it down. - G. Chambers Williams III
A tree company began cutting down the historic elm tree in the Norris Commons area on Monday morning, in a move made by the city manager over safety concerns.
The action came despite a plea by City Councilwoman Jill Hollard Ryan in last week’s edition of the Norris Bulletin newsletter calling for citizens to help save the tree, and starting a petition to keep the city from cutting it down.
But the decision to move the tree had already been announced to the council during its July 12 meeting by City Manager Scott Hackler, who said the rotting tree was likely in imminent danger of falling over, and was not worth trying to save.
Hackler said he took the action to prevent the tree from falling on someone and causing serious injury and death.
The issue was debated by citizens and the City Council for more than an hour during the July meeting, and the majority of those speaking about the issue supported the decision to remove the tree.
That included three of the five council members.
Hackler had sent the council an email prior to the meeting that outlined three possible actions the city could take on the rotting tree, with the first option – and his choice -- being to spend $3,000 to remove it, instantly eliminating the hazard.
The second option was to spend $13,850 or more to add steel support cables to the tree, trim out some of its upper branches – the “crown” area -- to reduce weight, and building a fence to keep people away from it.
That would have allowed the city to keep the tree for perhaps an additional five years, but it still would have posed a threat to public safety if people ignored the fence and got too close to the tree and it fell without warning, Hackler said.
A third option would be to spend $12,500 to build a fence, but leave the tree alone, and hope it might last another five years before it would have to be cut down.
With its removal, the issue is now moot.
“It’s a grand tree and everyone loves it being there,” Hackler said during the meeting. “[But] This is the only path I can recommend. … I can’t tolerate that level of risk.”
Ryan, who also is a member of the city’s Tree Commission, was the only council member to speak out against Hackler’s decision, and she was joined in her opposition by Tree Commission Chairman Charles Nicholson and by Councilman Bill Grieve.
“The tree is still growing,” Ryan said. “It is a beautiful tree, and I believe we should try to save it.”
Councilman Will Grinder took the opposite position, recommending that the tree be removed.
“For all of us, it has a really high historic value,” Grinder said. “If the tree was really viable, I think we could afford [the cost to try to save it].
“I couldn’t really support leaving it there,” he added.
Grinder did recommend that the council make the decision rather than leaving it up to the city manager.
But Mayor Chris Mitchell made it clear to all present that the decision rested solely in Hackler’s hands because of the way the city government is structured, with the city manager having complete control over operations and safety.
Council member Loretta Painter echoed Mitchell’s position, saying: “We don’t vote on this. It’s the city manager’s responsibility.”