Trees of home: the view wars.

When hillside landowners arm themselves with lawsuits and chainsaws, it's tough to spread the word that ugly tree-topping is a short-sighted idea.

Tree lovers in hilly Seattle, Washington, are under siege. Some are finding their beloved Douglas-fir or Pacific madrona hacked down under the cover of night. Others discover their trees girdled with a chainsaw or dying because someone drilled a hole and injected poison. Still others, like 79-year-old Dr. Edward Flick, a retired ophthalmologist, are dragged into court and spend thousands of dollars in a futile legal battle to save their trees. The usual outcome is that they are forced to pay to have the trees removed or topped--the entire crown sawed off--so a neighbor higher up the hill can have an unobstructed view of Puget Sound and the Olympic mountain range.

In the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, one view seeker compared the layout of Flick's community of Innis Arden--a posh shoreline enclave just north of Seattle--to a stadium. "If the guy in front of you stands up, what do you do? You say, `Sit down.'"

Just so: Trees, take off your hats. In fact, take off your heads.

As more and more people move to Seattle and other coastal towns, these View Wars, as The Wall Street Journal has called them, are boiling over. In communities like Innis Arden, where a piece of view property can sell for more clan $250,000 for the land alone, big bucks are at stake. "View hogs"--both sides resort to name calling--stand to boost their property values if they can open up a sweeping vista, while those who lose trees can see their property values drop by thou yard full of Douglas-firs that look like 20-foot telephone poles?

Lending credibility to the tree owners' argument is recent survey of realtors in 10 states in which 84 percent said homes in the $60,000-$300,000 range that had trees would be as much as 20 percent more sellable than homes without. Sixty-two percent of the realtors surveyed by ARBOR National Mortgage, Inc., said the presence of healthy shade trees affects the potential homeowners' impressions of a neighborhood. But, PlantAmnesty's Cass Turnbull says, trees "don't hold a candle" to scenic vistas in terms of what homeowners want.

With so much at stake, emotions run high. Bickering neighbors end up not speaking to each other. In an attempt to maintain views, several coastal towns have passed "view protection" ordinances or covenants. The new laws specify that any trees growing higher than a set limit-usually roof height-are subject to being removed or topped. The ordinances have not forestalled lawsuits. Angry homeowners desperate to save their trees go to court, claiming the new laws are unconstitutional.

One town's ordinance enumerates the ecological, aesthetic, and economic benefits of trees. Then comes a list of faults that is something of a shocker in the depth of the tree phobia it reveals:

"Trees may block light, impinge upon the utilization of solar energy, cause the growth of moss, harbor plant disease, retard the growth of grass, harbor rodents, interfere with snow and ice removal, as well as interfere with the enjoyment of views, including the undermining of property values."

Language of this ilk may well be a harbinger of more widespread tree wars to come: perhaps clashes over access to sun light rather than views.

Dr. Flick and his wife bought their lot in 1962, selecting it for its trees and small stream. About 10 years later, neighbors at a higher level asked the Flicks to trim their trees. The Flicks initially offered an olive branch, allowing one of the neighbors to select an arborist. But the company bungled the job so badly that the Flicks were told any future pruning could kill their trees.

The olive branch was not enough. Some years later, the neighbor took the Flicks to court to force them to open up the view. The Flicks lost the suit, and an appeal was also shot down. The only large tree the Flicks were allowed to retain was a native bigleaf maple estimated to be 100 years old. The court ruled that any tree tall enough to block the view at the time the subdivision was platted was "grandfathered"--that is, exempt from the covenant.

By the time of the appeal, the county had passed a Sensitive Areas Ordinance that permitted the Flicks to save some native red alders around the stream. But 16 other trees had to be removed, and an additional 30 or so were topped.

"The ambiance of the place changed for us," recalls Flick. "It decreased my joy in the property. I am not an environmentalist, but to destroy living things goes against my grain."

RELATED ARTICLE: TOPPING IS THE WORST ANSWER

"When you see Innis Arden from the air," says Seattle arborist John Hushagen, "it sticks out like a sore thumb. It's been ravaged. Hardly any tall trees are left."

As an arborist, Hushagen says, "I used to hold my nose and go in and do tree topping, but eventually I got my belly full." He refuses to top because it exposes the trunk to decay and initiates a spiral of decline from which the tree cannot recover. Once a tree is stressed by topping, root diseases move in for the kill.

The International Society of Arboriculture's position on topping is simple: "Don't do it," says Executive Director William Kruidenier. Topping removes the tree's natural growing habit, and though a professional arborist can take corrective pruning measures to reduce the potential for breaking and hazard, "the tree will never be what it should be," Kruidenier says.

A tree whose crown is gone will grow back rapidly in an attempt to replace its missing leaves. It won't slow down until it reaches the same size it was it was topped. The only way a tree can be stopped from growing is if it succumbs to the topping.

If the tree survives, it will produce a wild profusion of shoots that have to be cut as soon as they block the view. This new crown of skinny suckers is even denser than the original crown. Besides blocking the view even more, this new top-heavy crown can catch the wind like a sail, increasing the risk of the tree falling during a storm.

"Like a ticking time bomb the dangerous results of tree topping often take years to become manifest," points out a brochure published by PlantAmnesty, a Seattle group formed to spread the word about tree topping. "Property owners have been sued for retaining previously topped trees whose falling limbs injure property or people."

Two miles south of Innis Arden is another steeply sloped neighborhood. A resident of that community wanted to restore his view of Puget Sound. But he had once hired an arborist to top a neighbor's trees, and the job turned into a butchery similar to what happened to the Flicks. Guilt-ridden, the resident was reluctant to do that again.

This time, he brought in Hushagen's company, Seattle Tree Preservation. Hushagen convinced both neighbors that trees help stabilize the soil; provide wildlife habitat; scrub pollutants from the air: provide shade and thus lower air-conditioning costs. heighten privacy; enhance property values through their beauty; and slow water runoff, thus relieving over-loaded storm sewers and reducing the need for additional drainage infrastructure, which can raise taxes.

Hushagen mentioned a recent slide on a nearby hill, warning the two owners that about the worst thing they could do would be to remove or top the trees that stabilize soil on their slide-prone hillside. Instead, Hushagen "windowed" the view through the branches by selectively pruning. The result framed the view and was far more aesthetically pleasing than a sweeping expanse with ghastly topped trees in the foreground.

"The neighbor still had the effect of being surrounded by a forest," says Hushagen. "It was a win/win deal, and everyone was cooperative. No lawyers were involved. The neighbors are still speaking to each other."

Hushagen teaches classes at a community school, educating the public on proper pruning techniques. He advises that homeowners prune to reduce the mass of a tree, not its size. He tells them: Take out the dead wood, reduce the weight of the branches. Above all, incorporate the tree into the view. Trees add visual interest and perspective defining distances and bringing dimension to a landscape. Hushagen also advises people to hire a professional once the job gets out of their league, which means once the pruning involves climbing a ladder.

PlantAmnesty also runs classes and distributes publications on pruning to save both views and trees. In addition to windowing, PlantAmnesty suggests skirting--removing lower limbs--but notes the rule-of-thumb that limbing should not go up more than one-third of the tree's height. If the tree looks top-heavy, what remains should be thinned.

PlantAmnesty is so determinedly against topping that the group recommends selective tree removal as preferable to hacking off a tree's top branches. An empty landscape is better than one with trees that remind people of arm or leg amputations.

"The desire for a view obsesses people like gold fever," says Cass Turnbull, a professional gardener and founder of PlantAmnesty. "Because of the property-value increase' it's like getting free money."

PlantAmnesty also provides advice on view covenants and ordinances. A good law should require new seekers to resolve conflicts privately. If that becomes impossible, an arbitrator should be called in to forestall a lawsuit. The ordinance should disallow tree topping, designate clearly who pays pruning and removal costs, limit tree size by choice of species rather than pruning, limit the number of trees a view seeker can Petition to remove, limit the number and ultimate size of trees a homeowner can plant, and establish broad criteria regarding views (see "The Ideal View Covenant" on the next page).

Washington State's Department of Natural Resources has produced what it calls a tool box that provides city planners the verbiage and documentation for ordinances that will ensure woodlands are part of the future landscape. "We want to ensure that the future infrastructure will not be just roads and buildings and utility wires," says Shelley Farber, coordinator of the state's community forestry program. "We want to get trees and vegetation into that picture."

Farber notes that a good ordinance will promote arbitration rather than dictating the height of trees. The state helped one community produce an educational booklet with a map that divided the town into zones: the top of the hill, which could be forested with tall trees; the hillside, where view corridors could be set aside; and the bottom of the hill where the potential is greatest for trees to grow and block the view. Information was provided on the soil and appropriate vegetation in each zone.

The heart of solving the problem is to educate people on the values of trees and the aesthetics of views. Dr. Flick is well aware of what makes a beautiful vista:

"I have a view of Puget Sound, but it's an `alley' kind of view," he says. "That suits me fine." If he had a sweeping panorama instead, he would also be able to see every roof on the way down to the water--and all those ghastly amputated trees.

RELATED ARTICLE: THE IDEAL VIEW COVENANT

A good neighborhood covenant or city ordinance should do the following:

[solid index] Require that the view seeker try to resolve any conflict privately. Initial contact between the view seeker and the tree owner should include information outlining both parties' rights and responsibilities

[solid index] Designate an arbitrator or board for resolving dispute.

[solid index] Ban tree topping and require that all pruning be done according to International Society of Aboriculture standards.

[solid index] Designate clearly who pay any costs and fees if the conflict goes to arbitration. Often the view seeker pays a larger percentage of dispute-resolution fees.

[solid index] Set limits: Limit tree size by choice of species, not pruning.

Limit the number of trees a view seeker can attempt to have removed and the nun of trees a homeowner must remove.

Limit the number and ultimate size of trees a homeowner can plant or maintain.

[solid index] Establish criteria such as the following for arbitration board consideration: What was the view when the current owner bought the property? (Photos often are used)

What percentage of the view is obstructed? Are key elements hidden?

The view is assessed from what vantage points--the main viewing room only or from other windows?

What are the cumulative benefits of the trees--ecological, assessed value, privacy, value to surrounding landscape and neighborhood?

RELATED ARTICLE: SOURCES OF HELP

AMERICAN FORESTS 1516 P St. NW Washington, DC 20005 20a/667-3300

Publications: Growing Greener Cities (book) Shading Our Cities (book) Urban Forests magazine, February/March 1985, "Pruning Methods" Home Workbook Series, February 1984, "The Right Treatment for Troubled Trees"

Also contact AMERICAN FORESTS for information on the Citizen Forestry Support System, a joint project with Los Angeles' TreePeople, which helps tree groups become more effective partners in community efforts to plant and care for trees.

International Society of Arboriculture PO Box GG Savoy, IL 61874 217/355-9411

Publication: American National Standards for Tree Care Operations (ANSI 133).

National Arborist Association P.O. Box 1094 Amherst, NH 03031

Publication: Standards for Tree Pruning Practices (ANSI A300)

PlantAmnesty 906 NW 87th St. Seattle, WA 98117 206/783-9813

Norah Davis--former managing editor of American Forests, writes on natural-resource issues from aboard her sailboat, Richmond Studio, moored in Washington, DC.