Description
Reported to a council member that the trees south of West A in the new subdivision at Sunflower and George were dead and dying. Those trees were OLD back in the 50's. Who removed most of the dead trees but left 1 dying tree and several non-conforming mature suckers? At whose expense? How will a blend of re-plants and misshapen old trees be maintained? Was an arborist consulted and agreed to this plan? Older leaning trees could be a public hazard and/or a maintenance issue, either way a burden to the city. I applaud the wishful thinking of trying to preserve a grove of trees but this one is way past its esthetic usefulness. (IMO) Please answer the questions thoroughly when you have the opportunity. Thank you for this format to pursue transparency and accountability without rancor ...hope WE all are successful in rebuilding communication and lost trust missing so long in Dixon.
also asked...
A. Dead, Other
A. Public
A. you cannot miss these trees!
17 Comments
Dixon, CA (Registered User)
Acknowledged Engineering Administrative Clerk (Registered User)
joemo1966 (Registered User)
Engineering Administrative Clerk (Registered User)
Engineering Administrative Clerk (Registered User)
Closed Public Works Admin (Registered User)
Reopened RMO (Registered User)
City Engineer/Utilities Director (Registered User)
RMO (Registered User)
Thank you for at least responding, but it is sad that you just plagiarized a previous response from 09/08/2020 (see above) obviously to sweep this under the carpet. Apology accepted.
In the responses, it mentions "...the developer did have a certified arborist provide recommendations" but did NOT say whether these recommendations were publicized or adhered to, except to spread more culpability around by also mentioning "The approved landscape plans (developed by certified landscape architect) took into account the arborist's report."
Really? All this mention of approved plans and certifications mean nothing if they are wrong or not vetted. Unfortunately, these deficiencies are allowed to pass by due to (insert "any excuse will do")and ultimately the citizenry is served with sub-standard performance again and again .
FYI, I mentioned this tree situation to an ISA Certified arborist (40 plus years) who was already familiar with this old grove,he could see the state of decline from "A" Street just driving by, so who knows what would surface with a second opinion (a prerequisite in this new era)
A side moral of this, is "everybody knows an expert" but what is vitally important is how information is vetted, prioritized and mitigated or implemented down to the smallest detail. Providing the best of the best service to the people of Dixon is the bottom line. Compromise should not be settled for.
There are many little things falling through the cracks with the vast scope of this housing project.
Besides the trees, which were old and dying 50 years ago, the development landscaping is over run with noxious weeds in several places which will be very labor intensive to eradicate once established (and they are because they have been allowed to go to seed). The developer should be held to the same standards as any other citizen. "1 year of seeds, is 7 years of weeds_old farmer quote" and regardless of whose paying for it (should be the developer for 10 years until all the bugs are worked out), deferred maintenance is fiscally irresponsible due to the magnitude of effort required to fully recover from any deficiencies (which will continue to compound).
ReCap: 1) Please do not plagiarize in hopes any unpleasantry (and extra work) will go away.
2) Please demonstrate Integrity, dignity, ethics, ACCOUNTABILITY, and leadership in ALL
endeavors.
3) Get a second opinion.
4) Ensure performance bonds are sufficient.
5) Ensure your after-action-review captures every detail from weeds to cracks to light pollution
to traffic to safety and on and on...
6) Form a fixit Dixon, citizens input committee/liaison...some feedback mechanism
6) Thank you
RMO (Registered User)
RMO (Registered User)
RMO (Registered User)
RMO (Registered User)
RMO (Registered User)
RMO (Registered User)
RMO (Registered User)
RMO (Registered User)