What Happened?
The city of San Francisco is asking homeowners to shoulder the burden of maintaining literally tens of thousands of trees, many of which have recently been planted as part of a greening initiative. According to a recent report, approximately 65,000 trees have already been put under the care of private homeowners.
The Problem
Former San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom accomplished his ambitious goal of planting 35,000 new trees, and the city continues to plant and replace new ones. Unfortunately, the Public Works department can’t maintain them or fix all the sidewalk cracks that resulted, so they’re looking for help from residents.
Property owners, on the other hand, are frustrated because they had no input in the decision to plant the trees, but now have to maintain them. Costs are approximately $300 to $1,000 to prune a tree, which is required every three to five years. To add insult to injury, the city’s greening standards are still way behind other major urban centers, including New York.
Precedent?
Despite the outcry from homeowners, a precedent may be set: sidewalks. In most cases, homeowners are responsible for sidewalk maintenance. That’s certainly the case in major cities like New York and Baltimore, as well as other major metropolitan areas. There are some exceptions though. In Cincinnati, responsibility for maintenance is shared by property owners and the city. San Diego also has a shared responsibility model, with their own “50/50 Cost Sharing Program.” And in Sacramento, sidewalks are differentiated from curbs and gutters, which are the city’s responsibility.
Interestingly, in Los Angeles, maintenance of sidewalks had transferred back and forth between the city and homeowner—homeowners were responsible for sidewalk repairs until 1973, when a federal grand enabled the city to take over. A recent bill was proposed there that would require the city or county to fix any sidewalk damaged as a result of trees, and prohibits the city from fining the property owner for the repair. The author of the bill said, “homeowners should not be forced to pay for maintenance, when trees that they did not plant tear up their sidewalks.”
The Lesson
The lesson here: no surprises. According to reports, the homeowners aren’t opposed to the planting of the trees; rather, homeowners are opposed to being informed of their upkeep role after the trees were planted. The city might have had more success in its maintenance program had the city approached homeowners first, with this message: “We’re going to plant 35,000 trees, and we’d be happy to plant some on your property if you agree to maintain them.”
Either way, both homeowners and municipal leaders should be tracking this issue, as it may herald opportunities for cities looking to share certain costs with residents. We will continue to track the story for readers.