Becky Ritz did not vote on the motion to cut and replace the trees that line Beechwood becuase she made the motion. A majority of the board voted in support of Mrs. Ritz's motion. My husband and I live next to the Ritzs and we have seen the damage they have sustained from trees that should have been removed (or maintained) long before now. What possible agenda could Mrs. Ritz have except to to protect against personal injury and damage to property and person? The Ritzs have already sustained extensive damage to their home and fence, on more than one occasion. In addtion, if Mrs. Ritz,indeed, disliked trees, of which she has been accused, her motion would not have included a provision to cut and REPLACE the trees. We also hold our breaths when we have a storm because we have had damage to our home from fallen giant dead tree limbs. We do not want to have to worry about more extensive damage to property, nor do we want to worry about injury to our grandchildren, pets, or us. Who would?

The real question

I understand what you're saying, but the real question is whether the trees are actually diseased enough to warrant their complete removal. So far the ''evidence'' with which we've been presented would not pass muster in any rigorous scientific discussion. If the trees are really diseased and dangerous, they should probably come down--no one wants anyone to be at risk. But there's a risk amost everywhere where there are tall trees--get rid of all of them? Let's get verifiable facts before taking irreversible action. There really seems to be no immediate emergency. Can prudent therapy to the tree line preserve the beauty we've cherished for so many years, while decreasing the risk of damage to property and life? Let's slow down and get the facts, m'am.

Can't see the issue 4 the Trees

Ms. Beckham, you are correct in that Councilwoman Ritz did not again vote in favor of the motion, after having proposed it. However, her mere proposal of it speaks to her being in favor of it. After all, one doesn't make a motion one doesn't support. Correct? And your statement of the a majority of the board being in favor of her proposal is not entirely correct. She proposed the motion, it was seconded by another councilmember, as is required, and then a vote took place. The vote was 2 FOR the trees being removed and 2 AGAINST. The mayor had to in-fact break the tie. He did so in favor of the trees being removed.

I think the issue is becoming somewhat clouded. Perhaps we ''can't see the issue for the trees.'' I don't believe any councilperson, regardless of the issue, should table a motion in which they are involved, as I'm sure the Code of Ethics of WP states. That's just good sense. Also, if a vote arises in which a councilperson has some direct involvement, they should abstain from that vote. It's that simple.



By Kim Horn

produce survey & tree reports

I too am angered by the removal of the trees. They do not directly affect me or my property. I side with the Beechwood residents and anyone else upset about tax payer money paying for the work. To date no survey of the area has been done! This should have been done months ago to determine correct property lines!! And show concerned residents the tree expert's report. This has all been handled wrong!! Safety is a concern but this should not be hurried because of a handful of residents.