Disaster The City Denied a Portland Family’s Request to Chop Down a Douglas Fir. Last Week, the Tree Slammed Into Their Home. - Now, the Bonds are without a home, and the city is requiring them to ask for a retroactive removal permit for the tree that fell.

1706148447161.png

On Jan. 13, the second day of a winter storm that paralyzed the region, a 150-foot Douglas fir crushed Sarah and Joel Bond’s Southwest Portland home.

“We just watched it come down and got out of the way,” recalls Peter Larkin, a neighbor who was standing in the Bonds’ living room with Joel when the tree crashed into the roof above the upstairs bathroom. “In those kinds of moments, the first thing is trying not to get squished.”

The Douglas fir smashed through the roof like a dull knife trying to cut through a tomato. It barely missed the Bonds’ 6-year-old daughter, JoJo, who was upstairs at the time. It sent one family cat, Binx, into hiding for the next eight days—the family presumed he was dead until he surfaced out of the basement on Jan. 21.

The Bonds were hardly alone in their misery. Last week’s storm was the most destructive winter weather event in recent history, and much of that destruction was accomplished by trees. Downed trees and limbs left 150,000 households without power; set a recreational vehicle on fire, killing a woman inside; and made many roads impassable. At least 11 fundraisers on the website GoFundMe are seeking money to assist with damages from trees that crashed into homes.

But for the Bonds, the destruction was especially galling—because they had been asking the city of Portland for permission to chop down the tree that hit their house since 2021.

“We tried to get these trees out because we were like, this looks potentially dangerous,” Sarah Bond says. “The possibility that it could happen seemed good enough reason for me to take them down.”

The city didn’t agree. In February 2022, the city’s Urban Forestry division denied the Bonds a removal permit for the two Douglas firs. “Removal will significantly affect neighborhood character, based on the tree’s attributes, visibility of the tree to the public, or past removals of trees in the area,” the city’s letter read. “Tree appears healthy and not dead, dying or dangerous at the time of inspection; tree is [more than 10 feet] from an attached structure.”

Now, the Bonds are without a home, and the city is requiring them to ask for a retroactive removal permit for the tree that fell. Plus, the Bonds will have to plant a new tree in its place.

“I have to pay them for their approval to remove the stump of the tree that destroyed our house that they denied us a permit on,” Sarah Bond says. “I am in complete disbelief.”

The Bonds’ story echoes complaints from across the city about Portland City Hall maintaining a high bar for chopping down a tree.

Brenna Bell, co-leader of the Shade Equity Coalition, which lobbies the city to more aggressively plant trees, fears that incidents of trees crushing homes and cars in the past two weeks will cause Portlanders to see trees as threats—not assets.

“I’m kind of afraid that people are going to look askance at trees after this weather event,” Bell says. “Danger comes from everywhere. You could have a door from an airplane fall on your house, you just never know.”

The city’s tree code is stringent for a reason: As the earth’s climate heats up, cities across the country are touting trees as one of the primary protectors of human life. After all, shade provides a reprieve from the heat, which in 2021 baked 69 Portlanders alive, most of them elderly, isolated and without air conditioning, and living in East Portland, where the tree coverage is scant compared to that on the west side of the Willamette River.

So the city has strict rules for homeowners who want to chop down a tree. If the trunk of a tree on your property is more than 12 inches in diameter, the city won’t allow you to chop it down unless it’s dead, dying or dangerous or less than 10 feet from a structure.

In September 2021, Joel Bond sent a form to the city of Portland’s Urban Forestry division, which , with an annual budget of $17.5 million and 84 full-time employees, handles all matters arboreal. Bond asked for permission to chop down two Douglas firs in the backyard, which towered over the house.

In a neat drawing on the back of the application, Bond sketched a diagram to help orient the city tree inspector. (“Unknown Shrubby Street Tree,” he labeled a nondescript tree near the front of the house. That one could stay.)

Five months later, the city sent back its denial letter. To fight the decision would cost $200. The Bonds decided not to appeal.

Almost two years later, Joel Bond and Larkin were talking about that tree—which looked all the more ominous sheathed in ice than it did bare—when it toppled onto the home’s second story.

“I hear snap, snap, snap,” Sarah Bond recalls. “My husband ran past me, straight to where my daughter was, in my bedroom. All I remember is walking up the stairs and screaming my daughter’s name. It was just silent.”

Joel Bond found their daughter JoJo, covered in dust from the tree crashing the roof, in their bedroom. She was unhurt.

They found one of their two cats, Max, hiding. The second cat, Binx, had been in the bedroom closet when the tree fell, and the closet, crushed by the tree, had fallen through the floor. The mangled closet now lay in the living room.

The Bonds, fearing it was dangerous to dig through the rubble, called for the cat. They heard nothing. They took their belongings and their daughter and left the house.

Even as the Bonds returned home each day to dig through the rubble looking for their cat, Sarah tried to get the ear of the city’s Urban Forestry division. She feared the second Douglas fir in the backyard would fall soon, too.

On Jan. 18, a city employee emailed Bond. She advised the family to hire an arborist to chop down the other fir and “document the situation since your photos will provide valuable documentation if you do have to apply for a retroactive permit.”

In other words, the Bonds can hire an arborist to chop down the second tree, but if the city deems an application insufficient or unconvincing, the applicant could be fined up to $1,000 per day that the violation isn’t remedied. (Parks bureau spokesman Mark Ross says penalties will vary based on the each case.)

To add salt to the wound: A later email from Urban Forestry on Jan. 22 told the Bonds they have to apply for a removal permit for the tree that already crushed their house, and they’ll also have to plant another in its place, out of their own pockets.

“I’m just livid,” Sarah Bond says.

Ross, the parks bureau spokesman, says a retroactive permit for the fallen tree is “certain to be approved” because a denial is issued only when a homeowner removes a tree “without evidence that an imminent hazard existed.” Says Ross, “Obviously not the case here.”

Still, the Bonds must plant a tree in the fallen one’s stead.

Corky Collier, executive director of the Columbia Corridor Association, a business group that has lobbied the city for years to soften its rules around tree removal, particularly in industrial areas, says the city should trust homeowners.

“The city’s concern about unnecessarily cutting down a tree,” Collier says, “seems to outweigh the possibility that the owner may have better insight and good intentions.”

Bell, the tree advocate, says making exceptions for tree removals can be a slippery slope. Most of the time, Bell says, trees are lifesavers—not killers.

“During the heat dome, trees saved lives,” Bell says, even though five trees fell on her own property during last week’s weather. “Most of the time, the tree is going to be your friend.”

The parks bureau said in response to questions about the Bonds’ situation that homeowners are ultimately responsible for maintaining trees on their property.

“Not all tree failures can be predicted, but through proactive maintenance engaging qualified tree care providers, property owners can learn their best options,” Ross says. “Property owners are responsible for keeping trees safe to prevent injury and damage to property.”

The fallen tree still lies atop the Bonds’ home. To their knowledge, city crews haven’t touched it yet.

On Sunday morning, Sarah Bond used a flashlight to inspect the basement of what remained of her home, carefully lifting pieces of rubble that didn’t look like they were holding back an avalanche of material from toppling down. She was looking for Binx’s carcass. Then, in the beam of her flashlight, she saw him.

Binx was tucked behind two of the basement’s beams, unharmed and blinking in the bright glare of the flashlight.

https://www.wweek.com/news/2024/01/...r-last-week-the-tree-slammed-into-their-home/ (Archive)
 
pAfter all, shade provides a reprieve from the heat, which in 2021 baked 69 Portlanders alive, most of them elderly, isolated and without air conditioning, and living in East Portland, where the tree coverage is scant compared to that on the west side of the Willamette River.
Yes, Portland, known as a desert climate

I'm pretty fucking sure having an extra tree in a yard would not have saved those 69 people, most of them  elderly probably fent addicts living downtown in tents.
 
What's with papier mache houses in the US? Even poorfags in Mexico live in brick or cement houses that would've easily withstood the fall of a tree.
West coasters are convinced masonry will kill them in case of an earthquake.

Seems six of one half dozen of another but I'm not an architect so whatever. Also, there were multiple cases of new (shitty, cheap) multifamily construction on the west coast having the fire sprinkler system explode and destroy everything when it froze over during the power outage. Easier to get away with that than to build a "seismic approved" brick house.
 
There are dozens of tall trees on my property. If I want to cut one down, or if one comes down in a storm and I need to clear it out, nobody knows or gives a fuck either way. I can't imagine living in a place where basic property maintenance is controlled by anyone other than myself. The perks of living out in the sticks in a solid red state I suppose.
 
There are dozens of tall trees on my property. If I want to cut one down, or if one comes down in a storm and I need to clear it out, nobody knows or gives a fuck either way. I can't imagine living in a place where basic property maintenance is controlled by anyone other than myself. The perks of living out in the sticks in a solid red state I suppose.
Sad thing is this is what they're socialized to. They actually went and asked the city for permission to chop the tree down rather than just doing it and dealing with whatever consequences the state will pursue.
More often than not the state just never finds out unless you have a neighbor who hates you or you don't know how to keep your mouth quiet on twitter
 
Sad thing is this is what they're socialized to. They actually went and asked the city for permission to chop the tree down rather than just doing it and dealing with whatever consequences the state will pursue.
More often than not the state just never finds out unless you have a neighbor who hates you or you don't know how to keep your mouth quiet on twitter
It's Portland, Oregon. The city, county and state governments will form Voltron specifically to buttfuck the Bonds had they elected to go that route.

At this point, I'm interested in what their homeowners' insurance has to say. Or maybe they'll just punt and drop a piss-rinsed cherry on a shit-smothered sundae.
 
They should have cut it down with or without a permit anyway, citing how dangerous it is to have a tree like that so close to your house and that its a clear danger to the occupants. Sue the state if they try to stop you

Speaking of which, they tried to do things the legal way, got refused, nearly had their kid killed because surprise surprise they were right and the tree came down on the house, and now are being told to retroactively get a permit for removing it? Fuck off. They already tried that and a kid was nearly killed because of how the state responded. There are provable damages there. I'd be going after the state to repair the house and get compensation for the threat to my family and its failure to prevent the situation from happening when they had the chance
 
They have to get a permit to remove a tree that fell down! Actual derangement by the Portland government.
It's due to NA buildings being relatively new as compared to European housing. Wood frame housing was not as well developed when brick and masonry were popular as well as the logistics needed to get the materials there.

That and earthquakes.
 
Sad thing is this is what they're socialized to. They actually went and asked the city for permission to chop the tree down rather than just doing it and dealing with whatever consequences the state will pursue.
More often than not the state just never finds out unless you have a neighbor who hates you or you don't know how to keep your mouth quiet on twitter
The reality is that the city government is so completely dysfunctional, they can send you bills and scary letters but will never lift a finger to actually go after the money. Goody two shoes liberals are terrified that anything might ding their (social) credit score, but the gay little threats rarely have actual teeth.

When my brother lived there he threw his "arts tax" invoice in the garbage every year for ten years straight.
 
Back