Topping the tree ordinance

Recent comments at the last Mattoon Council Meeting prompted me to revisit the tree ordinance for a third time. The discussion of tree topping came up at the last council meeting. This was banned as part of the ordinance passed last year.

Other names for this malpractice include stubbing, heading, heading-back, stubbing-off, tipping, topping off, dehorning, lopping, pollarding or roundover. Whatever you call it, it appears to be very bad for the health of a tree.

Topping shouldn’t be confused with proper pruning of the tree. Pruning a tree selective reduces the number of branches within the tree to help shape the tree and control its size. Topping removes all the leaf branches from the tree and severely deforms it.

Topping a tree often doesn’t achieve what is intended. A topped tree will grow back at a rapid rate and could be the same size as before topping in as little as two years. It grows back rapidly in an attempt to replace its missing leaf area. It needs all of its leaves so that it can manufacture food for the trunk and roots.

Topped trees will likely need re-done every few years-and eventually must be removed when it dies or the owner gives up. Each time a branch is cut, numerous long, skinny young shoots grow rapidly back to replace it. They must be cut and recut, but they always regrow the next year making the job exponentially more difficult.

Besides, it’s ugly. Part of a trees beauty is its natural shape. The stumpy branches and shoots look like a witch’s broom. Ninety years of beauty ruined in a couple of hours. If the tree ever reestablishes itself, it will be the same size as it was pre-topped. This often prompts the misinformed owner to top the tree once again, starting the vicious cycle over.

Finally, topping a tree is dangerous. The exposed cuts can cause rot in the branches. Since the tree needs its leaves to provide the trunk and roots food, the loss of its tree branches can cause the rest of the tree to weaken. These weakened branches can break under undue stress from a storm or drought year. Ironically, some think topping a tree will strengthen it. The opposite is true.

If you have a tree you feel needs topped because it is to close to your house or under power lines. It’s more likely the tree should be replaced with one that is better suited for that area. Or it should be properly pruned to grow around the obstruction without taking away from the natural shape of the tree.

Topped trees detract from the value of your property. Appraisers subtract hundreds of dollars from the value of a tree when it's been topped. The City got this one right. Topping trees should not be allowed.

The Lake Island Tract debacle

Imagine if you were told to move your home or have it torn down. That is what the residents on the Lake Island Tract at Lake Charleston may be facing if the City doesn’t renew the leases on their parcels. The land is owned by the City but has been leased to the owners of the dwellings since the mid 1940’s.

In 1992, the then City Council set all the leases to expire in 2009. That was when the last lease was set to expire. Then Mayor Wayne Lanman stated at that time he saw no reason why the leases wouldn’t be renewed at that time.

But everything since then has pointed towards the City eliminating these parcels and reverting the land to recreational ground. Former City Manager Bill Riebe said the lake is too valuable of an asset and should be used as a recreational area that can be utilized by all Charleston residents.

The issue was a major topic in the 1993 mayoral campaign where future Mayor Dan Cougill gave the first indication that the City may allow the leases to expire in 2009 and use the land for recreational purposes. The conversion of this land was mentioned in the 1997 Charleston Tomorrow strategic plan. And the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1999 called for the elimination of the leases so the “land can be returned to its natural state and utilized as recreational and open space.” In 2002, Commissioner John Winnett stated he felt when he voted on the leases in 1992 that they would not be renewed beyond 2009.

I had heard that the original leases were for 99 years, but were lost and 2009 was chosen when they were rewritten. This would extend the end of the lease 35 years. I question the loss of all copies and records of this as both leaseholders and the City would have documentation. And meeting minutes from the 1940’s would talk of a 99-year lease.

According to City Manager Scott Smith, “In 1946, the City of Charleston entered into an agreement with the Illinois Department of Conservation for the construction of “Lake Charleston”. This agreement included a 99-year “Right of First Refusal” for the State. This means, that if the City decided to sell land around the lake to private residents, the State has 2 years to determine if they want to buy the land before private ownership. The State’s “Right of First Refusal” expires in 2044.” Even if the City decided to sell the tracts, the State would get first dibs on them.

About the only problem I see is that the lease holders will not be compensated by the City. However, they own the dwellings while the City owns the land. They have the right to remove their personal property, including the houses from the land.

The discussion of the termination of leases at the Lake Island Tract has been open and public for many years. The future of the leases has been part of an open process and public discussion, including, but not limited to, various City Council meetings, the Charleston Tomorrow Strategic Plan, and the Charleston Comprehensive Plan.

It doesn’t seem to me the City is dropping a big bomb here. I cannot understand why the leaseholders would invest much in these properties without having this issue resolved first. I am sympathetic for someone who is being forced to move, and I don’t blame them for fighting to stay, but the writing has been on the wall since at least 1997.

I want my ABC!!

For weeks now, we’ve been threatened of losing our ABC affiliates carried by Sinclair Broadcasting Company. Last week, it happened. WICS was pulled from Mediacom’s lineup and temporarily replaced with Starz Family.

After reading both Mediacom’s and Sinclair’s websites, it appears to be an old fashioned stand off where both companies are looking out for their own financial interests. And it’s us, the consumer that gets hurt in the end.

The Sinclair stations have traditionally been offered to Mediacom for free. They are “over the air” stations that get their revenue from advertising. The relationship works for both because Mediacom spreads Sinclair’s advertisers message to thousands of viewers, and the Sinclair stations entice viewers to use Mediacom’s service.

But Sinclair now wants Mediacom to pay for its stations, like they pay for cable stations. Mediacom is not willing to do that, so Sinclair demanded their stations be removed from Mediacom. While these two multi-million dollar corporations flex their muscles and butt their heads, we can’t watch Grey’s Anatomy, Desperate Housewives, or Ugly Betty. Luckily they are in reruns now, but not for long.

Of course each website is overly biased towards their company so its hard to get a feel for who’s in the right here. I almost can’t blame Mediacom for letting them go, but many other cable companies have been able to come to an agreement with Sinclair, including Comcast and AT & T.

If this were also a free market, I would say Sinclair has the right to charge for their service. But they have exclusive broadcasting right by the FCC for their stations in this area. They appear to be using this monopoly status to strong arm Mediacom for more money. This increase would eventually come out of the consumer’s pocket.

If Sinclair is going to charge like a cable station, they should give up their exclusive right to broadcast in this area and let other affiliates compete.

So what are you other options? The phone company now offers television service, as far as I know; they are still offering Sinclair stations. There is also Dish Network and Direct TV. Or if you have a high-speed internet connection, you can watch a lot of the network shows online through the networks websites.

Sinclair must have some deal with Direct TV, because most of their explanation of this mess read like an advertisement for Direct TV. It almost seems as though Sinclair is trying to pull customers away from cable and sign up for satellite.

By not being seen in Mediacom markets must be costing them in advertising. And also must be costing Mediacom as customers scramble for other options. I just wonder how we are going to catch the basketball game this weekend. Get this settled fast, I want my ABC!!

First impressions are lasting impressions

On October 3, 1961, the Mattoon City Council approved $22,110 for the construction of public restrooms along Broadway Avenue. The restrooms were to be on the south side of Broadway, on the east side of the Illinois Central railroad tracks.

In November of that year, a section of the barrier wall guarding the slope to the subway below was removed and footings were poured for the project. Work proceeded throughout the winter and spring, and by the first of May 1962, the restrooms were open. They were open from 9 till 6 daily and till 8:30 on Fridays.

For 40 years the restrooms served shoppers and train travelers alike. The level of maintenance throughout the years sometimes-included full-time attendants other times simple janitorial services.

In 2001, the new city council felt the cost of maintaining the restrooms was greater then the city could afford. One of their first actions when taking office in May was to close the public restrooms. The building was razed as part of the bridge replacement project that summer.
Though the structure is gone, the gap in the barrier wall remains. A section of orange construction fence was placed across the gap to deter pedestrians from wandering to the tracks below. Four years later, this stretch of construction fence remains.

Ironically, this gap in the wall is one of the few places where the tracks are visible. The "trees of paradise" have infested the slopes of the subway from one end of town to the other. Getting rid of these trees will also do wonders to improve the looks of the city.

15 months have past since I first wrote that and the orange construction fence remains. Now visitors from out of town have also commented on the condition of the railroad right-of-way near the depot and that has prompted the City to look into the situation.

In 1999, the City entered into a contract with Canadian National Railroad for the railroad to clean the right-of-way, ridding it of debris and trees once the bridge construction was completed. The Champaign Avenue Bridge was the last be completed and the railroad has yet to fulfill their portion of the contract. The City has promised to put pressure on the railroad to fulfill their agreement.

Once the cleanup is completed, the railroad will grant easements to within 15 feet of the tracks so community groups can take over maintenance of the slopes, similar to the adopt a highway program.

First impressions are lasting impressions. For thousands of travelers on the Amtrak, this is the only impression they ever get of Mattoon. Mattoon is starting to take good strides in improving the looks of the community. The subway is one area that many locals never see, but many could be visitors do. Lets not neglect this area anymore.