Negotiations continue on Parker Road extension, but arborists warn that live oaks may be too damaged to save
BY JENNIFER CABRERA
GAINESVILLE, Fla. – Alachua County and GRU have had several rounds of negotiations about the County’s request for an easement variance that would allow five live oaks to remain standing, but GRU foresters and a former City arborist have warned that the trees are probably too damaged to be saved.
After the County asked GRU for an easement variance to save five live oaks that are currently scheduled to be removed because they are in the right-of-way of the Parker Road extension, GRU CEO Ed Bielarski responded on March 26, “While we are sympathetic to community members who are passionate about our urban forest, we are obligated to do what’s best for the entire community to make sure we provide safe and reliable power.”
GRU’s letter states that the 50-foot standard setback for high-voltage transmission lines exists “so our crews can safely work on these extremely dangerous power lines and so vehicles never come into contact with them. This is not a ‘crazy right-of-way-requirement,’ as one commissioner suggested. It is putting safety first.” The letter emphasizes that GRU has worked with the County on the project for more than two years, and “the County Commission has had ample time to develop a plan to save these five trees over the last two years and has not.” The letter suggests that the County could remove one of the two 10-foot pedestrian pathways or reduce their width.
The letter states that GRU’s foresters have determined that the trees are “in a declining state,” due to damage from construction equipment.
On March 30, former City of Gainesville Arborist Meg Niederhofer sent an email to County Commissioners and wrote, “The [South Pointe] Heritage Live Oaks are a sorrow… The trunks, branches, and roots have been damaged by machinery. A substantial amount of fill dirt now covers the root-zone on the side near the homes. Live Oaks will withstand abuse, but it would be miraculous if these trees could recover from the degree of degradation they have suffered. With homes nearby and traffic on the new road as probable ‘targets,’ the consequences of potential failure from uprooting, huge branches breaking, or main trunks splitting and falling, the potential consequences are dire… I think the best you can do is use their demise as an opportunity to strengthen the processes by which staff plan and act to deliver projects that follow the Code provisions that protect and preserve Heritage trees.” Her letter goes on to suggest lessons that can be learned from this project.
On March 31, Alachua County Public Works Director Ramon Gavarrete wrote to the GRU Authority that he appreciated the “detailed review and steadfast response” from Bielarski; he said the roadway could be relocated about 40 feet to the west, but this would require a 16-foot expansion of the existing 20-foot transportation easement and an additional 20-foot temporary construction easement.
The County Commission has two special meetings scheduled on April 7, but agendas have not yet been posted.
The county will chain themselves around an oak tree but they won’t think twice about using imminent domain to take your property.
“imminent domain.” the Chronitard comment section never disappoints.
Far from not thinking twice, “eminent domain” is an action the county is extremely hesitant to take. It is a last, and very expensive, option.
So, in this situation, who pays the required $30K fine per Heritage oak and plants 16 other trees for each Heritage oak that will be removed? Or does that just apply to private homeowners?
Government Rules for thee……not for me.
All county tax payers would pay that. The “county” is not a private business or small collection of oligarchs.
Also they can plant new live oaks. They grow pretty fast in the right locations. Since these ones are so damaged and a hazard when they decline.
Live oaks grow very slowly. Laurel oaks and water oaks grow quickly but don’t live as long and are prone to blowing over.
The letter from Bielarski suggests that the County “could remove one of the two 10-foot pedestrian pathways or reduce their width.” Sounds like a rational and reasonable compromise to me—particularly for the reasons cited. If they were concerned about the widths of pedestrian paths, they should correct the widths of the paths along NW 43rd and NW 53rd.
It will be interesting to see if the County places more value on trees than they do human lives.
After losing on the illegal “privilege fee” in the mid 1990’s, The county never exercised its right to require franchise agreements for GRU’s PROSPECTIVE use of such county property. Does Hutch’s wife feel sorrow for the tons of whole shredded trees GRU incinerates all the time in Pegeen’s dirty, unnecessary’ uneconomic biomass plant?
Meg Neiderhofer former City Aborist wrote, “The [South Pointe] Heritage Live Oaks are a sorrow… The trunks, branches, and roots have been damaged by machinery.”
WHY? Why were they damaged? Who was asleep at the switch? Laws not followed or let slip by? This degradation by equipment is not acceptable. Who is in charge of this stuff? Why were the trees not respected ? A tree is just not a tree. It’s a cherished living thing. Heritage oaks are 100s years old. These were abused and now will be murdered and destroyed. You CAN’T replace them!!
I don’t respect Meg neiiderhoffers opinion on anything…she’s no environmentalist… she’s the devils minion…
Hutch only cares about lining his pockets…🤮
As a citizen and resident, if I even suggested taking Down one old Oak Tree the Holier then Though Group of Politicians would Claim I was Destroying Eco System and a Menace to Society. Why do we treat Corporations any differently
Oops. Not quite as bad as allowing the clear cutting of hardwoods at Celebration Pointless.
Living under high-voltage lines and adjacent to a substation is not good for anyone’s health.
That being said, I’d also be irritated if all my backyard trees were hacked down.
Failure of the bureaucracy with this project and there should be some public works/design accountability especially in light of the recent push to “protect the canopy” and revision to county tree ordinance. Rules should apply to all equally.
Meanwhile the City spending money we don’t have…oops too much money in tree mitigation bank? Tree hugging wins over fiscal responsibility and duty?
In 2023, the City of Gainesville faced a decision about four problematic oak trees — two shumard oaks and two live oaks — growing in the public rights of way along SE 1st Ave. and SE 1st St. downtown. Their overgrown roots had damaged adjacent sidewalks, curbs, and roadways, creating accessibility issues.
The city laid out two options for saving the trees instead of removing them:
Option 1 – Relocate parking: Replace angle parking along SE 1st Avenue with parallel parking, relocate the sidewalk, and modify the stormwater system — estimated at approximately $500,000.
Option 2 – Modify outdoor cafes: Work with four downtown businesses to significantly alter the exterior features of their buildings, at the businesses’ own expense — which could also impact historic structures, including the building housing Harry’s restaurant, which was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1994.
By contrast, simply removing all four trees was estimated to cost only about $10,000, with new trees to be planted using the Tree Mitigation Fund.
So preserving the trees could cost up to $500,000 compared to $10,000 to remove and replace them — a 50x cost difference that sparked considerable public debate.
This is a planning failure of both Public Works and GRU. Early on the survey would have shown the problem which they both then should have had an obligation to bring to the attention of higher-ups – GRU and the County Commission, and I think we can assume they would know to address it before the backhoes and bulldozers did.