Website Home   or   Forum Home

Register or log in (lost password?):

Username:
Password:

Remember me

Riverside Info » About Riverside

1. HABIV
   Member

   A resident offered to give the village a gift of $5,000 to plant trees. With the help of the village forester, the donor developed a list of trees that are resistant to the diseases that are ravaging trees native to Riverside. One example is the Accolade Elm, a cultivar developed at the Morton Arboretum in 1924. The Landscape Advisory Committee approved the plan and recommended that the Board of Trustees accept the gift. On 8/17, the board voted against accepting the gift. In witnessing the debate, it seemed that the “no” votes were motivated by spite rather than reason.

   I have a great appreciation for the importance of maintaining native plant stock. I helped to plant thousands of native species along the river bank. At the same time, I know that our local ecosystem is teaming with foreign pests leaving our native plants defenseless. Last spring, I lost an elm that cost $2,500 to remove.

   When faced with a declining number of trees, an inability to replace trees with vulnerable native species, and no room in the budget, it makes sense to accept such a generous offer. While every effort should be made to utilize native species, carefully selected alternatives need to be considered. After all, I bet that most residents would rather have Accolade elms than no elms at all; especially when they are free.

   Posted Monday Aug 24, 2009 15:47 #

2. newriversider
   Member

   Why would they decline this offer???

   Posted Monday Aug 24, 2009 16:46 #

3. Catherine
   Member

   Oh brother. Really? Spite? Please give me a break.

   I thought perhaps the refusal to donate the money unless the demand for cultivars was complied with at least prideful, since he said his only motive was to encourage species diversity.

   The gentleman was under the impression that the great variety of trees on the LAC, DPW, and village government approved list for Riverside had not been planted for many years because they had failed. It was pointed out that in fact they had not been planted because boards since we don't know when but a very long time have not budgeted a dime for tree planting in the village, save the coop for parkway trees. And that parkway trees are chosen for confined characteristics of hardiness to road salt, etc.

   When Trustee Sussman tried to find a compromise and asked whether he would not, having been so enlightened, engage in a discussion on native trees on the approved list that have not been planted for many years, since he said his motive was to diversity species, he refused and asked for an up or down vote on his proposal as he formulated it. I think this was pride talking. I am not unsympathetic, but this was an option that offered satisfaction to all. He did offer to go for this option if the board would commit to now spending the same amount per year in planting the approved diverse native species, but that was not something they could do until the budgeting process is gone through.

   Natives are favored not out of perversity, but because they have track records of thousands of years of being successful in this environment, something cultivars do not have. The great expense of removing failing trees in the future was one reason cited for why a gift could end up costing a lot of money.

   His bellicose manner at LAC and the Trustees meeting was unfortunate, since I think people began to wonder whether his concern was tree diversity or in having his donation recognized by the requirement that its form comply with his stated preference. It is unfortunate a solution face-saving to his could not be found. We could not accept a donation to the Arcade that would require it be painted pink, for example.

   A former member of the LAC was present who said he knew little about trees. People have different areas of expertise. Many knowledgeable people departed LAC in the recent past, and I think it is in a bit of an uproar. Recommending plantings not on their own list is a violation of their own, well, list. In any event, there is no requirement their recommendations be followed, and three board members know more about trees than nearly anyone on that commission.

   Perhaps it would be better if village employees did not engage in participating in evolving plans with residents that are not first briefly flagged to the elected representatives. I believe this has always been normal operating procedure before a department springs something on the Board. I think the chance for mutual satisfaction would have been greater had such proper procedures been followed. Perhaps all is not yet lost.

   We do have a national historic landmark to preserve here. Losing some of its form to natural causes is one thing; deliberately eroding it without proven necessity another. As the effort to obtain the Preserve America designation shows, the landmark is essential to any historic or architectural tourism we may hope for to help save our business district.

   I will remind you that our elected representatives are also volunteering something of value to this village in their time and labor, something worth more than $5,000 per year apiece, welcome as that might also be.

   Posted Monday Aug 24, 2009 17:31 #

4. spatny
   Member

   I raised $1900 for trees, and that was matched by the Olmsted society. We left the choice of trees and location to the Village Forester. We have raised additional funds for trees that do not meet the criteria of being parkway trees (in front of someone's home) and will continue to do so. I think we have to many people that want to donate something, and do, and then want to attach strings to it, or want a plaque with their name on it placed nearby, or some such. $5K is roughly 25 trees. Why not plant half native species and half cultivars as an experiment? I donated ten or so small 5 gal. size trees a couple years back and they seem to be growing nicely. Twelve trees of any kind won't ruin the village landscape, and it might prove to be worthwhile. Perhaps a compromise is best.

   Posted Monday Aug 24, 2009 20:09 #

5. commonsense
   Member

   My TIVO only recorded the second half of the board meeting, I did not see the discussion about the tree donation.

   Who came up with the tree list, the citizen, the forester, or both?? Who was the citizen and was anyone from the LAC present to defend their decision?

   It does seem odd that some compromise could not have been reached. As Spatny points out raising $5,000 is no easy task. Is that the end of the discussion, or are they trying to work something out?

   (I'm not trying to stir the pot here I'm just asking what happened.)

   Posted Monday Aug 24, 2009 21:22 #

6. KimJ
   Member

   Regarding Cultivars, the following comments are my private opinions & thoughts on this matter as the Olmsted Society Board has not yet discussed this issue.

   First, we ARE a National Historic Landmark Landscape District.

   What does that mean?

   According to the National Park Service. http://www.nps.gov/history/nhl/

   "National Historic Landmarks are nationally significant historic places designated by the Secretary of the Interior because they possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States. Today, fewer than 2,500 historic places bear this national distinction. Working with citizens throughout the nation, the National Historic Landmarks Program draws upon the expertise of National Park Service staff who work to nominate new landmarks and provide assistance to existing landmarks."

   Note the sub-title to our landmark designation, it is LANDSCAPE, specifically.

   How many villages around us have a NHL designation of any kind? Actually, none.

   So back to the Cultivar issue.

   The Arboretum has been creating cultivars for nearly 90 years now, and there are a few very old examples of cultivars on their property. The Arboretum is a museum of trees, a place for science and for experiments.

   The Village of Riverside is a NHL LANDSCAPE district.

   The Cultivars have been offered by a citizen to the village for specifically parkway trees, for an "experimental tree program," which would now be in its' 3rd year of experiment.

   Parkway trees are the ones that inhabit the strip of land usually between your sidewalk and the road. Arguably, many of these trees are the most obvious and visible trees in the village. For example, what is planted in ones backyard tends not to be noticed as readily.

   So, for me, when considering our coveted and wonderful NHL status for our landscape, should we exercise caution when considering non-native trees in our most visible and common areas, the parkways? These trees have technically not existed in nature before 100 years ago. Trees that may not provide edible fruits & nuts for animals? Trees that may not be able to seed naturally, but may only continue to exist by the help of a man in a science lab?

   I believe that Riverside is not an experiment, but a work of art.
   If the LAC deems adding hybrids for diversity to their "Approved Plantings List" than so be it. But accepting a donation of plant material that the LAC does not approve of, on an ANNUAL and EXPERIMENTAL basis, is wrong. Either they are on the list, or not.

   These cultivars CAN be planted on private property. There is nothing to stop an individual from planting the hybrid Elm they desire on their property.

   Someone went to a lot of trouble compiling this very thorough document.
   Go to the forestry bullet and click on "Landscaping in a landmark village."http://www.riverside.il.us/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={145E42E7-A1BD-4D8D-AA4C-59E9EAC8021A}

   Posted Monday Aug 24, 2009 21:27 #

7. JillM
   Member

   Commonsense: Steve Campbell made the offer. He conferred with Mike Collins, who knows the science and the history, and if the donation were accepted would let Mr. Collins choose the specimens. Mr. Campbell first presented his proposal to the LAC, which, as Trustee Sussman pointed out, voted in favor of recommending to the Board that they accept the donation. There was a member of the LAC in attendance who was against that decision (sorry, don't remember his name).

   The situation was left with queries about how the recommended planting list can be amended.

   The tree discussion lasted 45 minutes (if memory serves), and got quite heated at one point. Once the meeting is available online, you might want to watch it. Several people in attendance thought Trustee Sacchi's interaction with Mr. Campbell became inappropriate for an elected official. Not to say Mr. Campbell didn't give back...

   Posted Monday Aug 24, 2009 22:17 #

8. EricSundstrom
   Member

   Eric Zuschlag was the current LAC Board Member who spoke out against the donation. I was the past LAC member who spoke for acceptance of the donation at the board meeting. I admit I'm not a forester. That was Mike Collins expertise and he advised us regarding the needs and options available to us. Bob Campbell is the citizen who has/had generously given $5000 for planting tree cultivars ( I think the term experimental gives the wrong idea of the trees being used) And no signage was required for these donations while I was on the LAC. It is my opinion from observation and conversations that this donation was turned down because of long held opinions, strongly expressed, by a prior member of the LAC and the current Chairperson of the LAC. During the boards discussion on this matter Trustee Sacchi named Mr Kunka as the person who influenced his decision on this matter.Mr Kunkas recollections are true, cultivars back in the 70s had a track record of failure, but the science has improved over the decades and today, as stated by Village Forester Mike Collins, failure if it happens, occurs while the tree is young and still in the tree nursery. The Arboretum recommends Accolade Elms as replacement for the the American Elm.I place the Arboretum's expertise of trees in high regard and to disregard its practical experience and scientic knowledge based on one persons bias smacks of Hubris. I also would not worry about the possibility of having to remove a few of these cultivars, I would direct the Board to begin concerning itself about where we as a village are going to get the Money to take down and replace the Hundreds if not Thousands of native ash tree that will die when the emerald ash borer hits our area.A sad state of affairsin my mind. Refusing money in these economic times is the height of foolishness.

   Posted Monday Aug 24, 2009 22:43 #

9. commonsense
   Member

   I love the beautiful native Elm trees but Dutch Elm nearly wiped them out. I am assuming that the suggestion was to replace the Elms with a different type of native tree. What type of trees did they suggest?

   What happens when the Ash trees meet the same fate via the Ash Borer?

   The landscape will change significantly with the loss of so many Elm and Ash trees, which is both very sad and very expensive!

   Posted Monday Aug 24, 2009 22:49 #

10. JillM
    Member

    EricS, was it you who recalled a canopy of elms over the streets when you were young?

    CS, as Eric said, Mr. Collins recommended accolade elms, among other species, as a replacement for American elms. Trustees Sussman and Sells asked him many questions about the *current* state of the science of cultivars, and EricS made a good point, that most of the failures happen at the nursery. Trustee Reynolds' depiction of trees falling at the root after 20 years just isn't based on science. And as Trustee Sussman said, there is no replacement for American elms, so what are we to do if we want (must?) to try to recreate Olmsted's vision of Riverside? Those canopies of yesteryear. Thus her repeated attempts at a compromise.

    Posted Monday Aug 24, 2009 23:01 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.