And Doesn't Replace Them
September 13, 2011
"Dramatic Park-Like Setting" Gone
Anyone else notice what is disappearing around Edgewater Isle?
Edgewater Isle North has removed countless established trees without replacing them, putting homeowners at risk of loss of privacy and loss of shade. These trees have been at the complex since it was built over 25 years ago, and some homeowners may have bought their place with these trees in mind.
Imagine you're a homeowner in a homeowners association who bought their "unit," or as some would call it your "home," and it had a number of trees surrounding it. Then imagine that over the years the homeowners association removes every single tree around your home and does not replace a single one. Even worse, imagine you're an original homeowner and you still have your original sales brochure because you bought when the place was new and you were sold this bill of goods about a "dramatic park-like setting":
Imagine your source of shade that shields your house on hot days is gone. Imagine the trees that give you privacy in your house are gone. Imagine the homeowners association leaves you with less and less each year while the head of the landscaping committee always gets a little something for herself.
This is what's happening at Edgewater Isle. Edgewater Isle has systematically removed trees over the years, leaving homeowners without privacy and without shade. While the acacia trees in question may have been messy with lots of little yellow fuzzy droppings, the shade and privacy are worth the trade-off. Why has Edgewater Isle failed to replant these trees with real trees instead of substituting a large potted plant in the place of one tree that was removed?
The association clearly doesn't care about what was promised 25 years ago. Nor about homeowners' wishes in preserving and/or replacing trees. Trees are a reserve item, so there should be funding available to replace these trees. Why has the association failed to live up to its own reserve study and replace these trees?
We can clearly see 4 acacia trees here. One by the short fence, one by the taller fence, and 2 behind the white van.
A few years later, the association has removed the tree in front of the short fence, leaving a gaping hole in its place. The tree by the tall portion of the fence remains, as do the 2 to the right of it.
Now in 2011, the tree clearly shown in the photo above has been replaced with a shrub. This is not a tree at all and will never replace the shade and privacy offered by the tree the association removed and failed to adequately replace.
Doesn't the City of San Mateo have a permit requirement for the removal of trees and/or aren't these trees supposed to be replaced?