Friday, May 4, 2007

Trees on landmarked property destroyed

Councilman John Liu, Community Board 7, and other leaders gathered Monday in front of the Fitzgerald/Ginsberg Mansion, a recently landmarked site in Flushing, to denounce the destruction of seven antebellum trees and warn against further destruction to this historic area.

Tree Destruction Decried In Flushing

Dr. Carsten Glaeser, consultant arborist, said that the destruction of these seven trees — healthy shade trees worth over $80,000 — “completely disregards the horticultural history of our community.”

Read more about the Fitzgerald-Ginsberg-Carelitz Mansion.

Read the LPC's designation report.


Anonymous said...

I haven't seen John Liu protesting in front of any Tommy Huang projects. Have you?

taxpayer said...

Typical Queens Chronicle reporting: Who owns the home? Who cut the trees down? What can the penalties be for the destruction of trees?

Queens Chronicle reporting is worth every penny it's readers pay for the paper!

From helpless, hapless Liu we get denunciation and decrying. Wow! That's going to frighten anyone else with the same idea!

To be denounced by a City Council member! Now that's worse than jail or a fine!

No matter how tough Liu gets, he remains in the hearts and pockets of the Chronicle and the developers.

Julie said...

How about an interview with the owner to find out why they felt the need to tear the trees down? I wouldn't put my byline on this awful article, either, if I wrote as poorly.

LeeBee said...

This article is not an article. It's the press release John Liu's office released. If you want a slightly more balanced article, check out the Tribune.

LeeBee said...

(you might not be able to find it online, but it's in the Flushing edition of the Queens Tribune)

Anonymous said...

Removing healthy or relatively healthy trees at the sake of progress is no better than committing murder!

Anonymous said...

Penalties should be served for the destruction of trees. Let's put our politicians to work. Legislation is crucial! How's about it Melinda Katz & Dennis Gallagher???

Anonymous said...

The community standards that used to define and make a neighborhood strong and stable are being eroded.

Remember, this is the great fear of the clubhouse, quality of life.

They don't want it, they can't handle it, and if they wanted to change things to encourage it, they could do so overnight.

Anonymous said...

Isn't this the same John Liu (who lives nearby) that "fought" (h-m-m-m) against the destruction of another historic home by the Salvation Army (south of Bayside Ave. on Parsons Bl'vd) about 10 years ago?

He failed miserably then!

He can't even protect his own backyard now!

What a shameful failure he is as a community representative!

He's all show and no blow!

How did this son of a convicted felon get elected to the City Council? a very small margin despite heavy Stavisky etc. support!

Xris said...

Trees on private property are not protected. Landmarking only addresses buildings, not the property.

verdi said...

"Xris" you are totally misinformed.

LPC has regulated trees (on private property) in Douglas Manor (Queens) and Fieldston (Bronx) historic districts!

Re-calculate your research!

Xris said...

Verdi/QC: Thanks for the tip. This is the first I've heard of such a thing, so I looked it up. This is from the Fieldston Historic District FAQ from LPC's Web site:

"Does the Commission regulate vegetation? Can I remove a tree on my property without a Commission permit?

The Landmarks Preservation Commission does not regulate ordinary landscaping activities such as pruning,
planting of seasonal flower beds or vegetable gardens, or planting of ornamental shrubs or trees. Unlike in the Riverdale and Douglaston Historic Districts, the Commission will not regulate mature trees in the Fieldston Historic District because of the neighborhood’s designation as a Special Natural Area, where landscape changes require review and approval by the Department of City Planning."

So it sounds like Fieldston's trees are protected, but not because the area is landmarked. Fieldston trees are not protected by LPC, but under another policy. Trees in Douglaston and Riverdale are protected by LPC.

You don't need to jump down my throat. I'm not the enemy. And I'm not "totally misinformed." LPC protection of trees is an exceptional case, not the rule. I'm happy to learn that some trees are protected. Most of the tree cover in my area is on private property. I would like to know that there could be some protection for them as well.