CLEAN Comments - River Oaks Questionnaire Comments

“I would like to see restrictions on decibel range, hours of operation, no leaf blowers in the street, and some course on their proper use. I see one man spend five or ten minutes blowing a few leaves into a pile 50 feet away.”

“Prohibit use unless the blower is used between 9am and 5 pm, with the leaves trash bagged, not blown into the street or the neighbor’s yard. Make the homeowner responsible.”

“We need rigid and enforced restrictions. Can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen yard workers using smoke belching blowers blowing leaves into the street or down storm drains. Why doesn’t ROPO do something?”

"Use of leaf blowers should be permitted only after 8 am on weekdays and 9:30 on weekends. Blowing leaves into the street or the neighbors yard should be prohibited.”

“8 am – 5 pm on week days only for hours of operation.”

“9am – 5pm weekdays only”

“9am – 4pm weekdays only”

“9am – 4pm “

“9am – 4pm”

“No weekends, 9 am-dark”

“8am – 5pm Monday – Saturday”

“a complete ban would be terribly expensive.”

“Blowers should not be allowed before 8 am on weekdays and 9 am on weekends and holidays.”

“No Sunday leaf blowers”

“Use should be after 9 am and no later than 4 pm”

“No usage on weekends. No yard work before 8 am on weekdays. No gas leaf blowers.”

“Limit hours of use and prefer electric leaf blowers.”

“Use should be limited to certain hours. Penalties (financial) should be assessed against those who blow debris into street storm sewers.”

“Yard services say they would have to charge more. I think they could use a broom and rake and be just as time efficient.”

“I do not think maintenance crews should blow leaves into city drains, flooding remains a problem.”

“Should ban use of only gas leaf blowers being used by commercial businesses. Leaving only electric leaf blowers and gas blowers used by residents will take care of 98% of the problem.”

“Restrict their use to 9 a.m.- 5 p.m. from Monday through Friday and 11 a.m.-3 p.m. on Saturday.”

“Only to be used at certain times of the day.”

“Not on Sundays.”

“NOISE!”

"Elimination of the use of leaf blowers could potentially impact the cost of lawn service. Many services may decline to work in the neighborhood. This issue needs to be researched extensively in that regard.”

“My current view is that reasonable restrictions are ok; banning is too much interference with the personal freedom of individuals.”

“limit time of use 8 am – 5 pm.”

“I am really leaning towards a complete ban but think there may be the exception for an occasional use.”

“Electric blowers only at restricted times of the day; 8 am- 5pm.”

“Electric leaf blowers seem to be a goof solution!”

“Restrict the use of leaf blowers Saturday and Sunday.”

“The main thing I hate about leaf blowers is that they spread dirt and other matter into the air and on my windows and window sills.”

“I would love a complete ban but imagine there would be much opposition. Yard service companies will certainly use a ban to increase their service prices. At the very least no Saturdays or Sundays and limited week day hours.”

“I would be in favor of a ban on weekends. You will not find gardeners willing to rake. They need to do too many houses to make a living.”

“I would like a complete ban on the use of leaf blowers, but I suppose they are a necessary evil. Use only Monday – Friday between 10 AM–5 PM.”

“Electric blowers seem to be a good alternative. We use one.”

“Electric blowers would be useful at times.”

“Time limits- no Sundays, no blowers before 8:00 AM or after 4:00 PM [in the] winter or 6:00 PM [in the] summer.”

“Electric blowers used on sidewalks and drains only. Fines should be imposed on owners who allow leaves to go into gutters and drains.”

“Time of day restricted. We would also like to see more raking regardless, because of the noise and air pollution.”

“Many gard[e]ners start well before 8 AM and there is no way to stop them. I favor limited times for their use. If that can’t be enforced, I would ban them.”

“No weekend usage. No usage before 9:00 AM.”

“Time and decibel level.”

“Not before 10 AM on Sat. or Sunday.”

“Yardmen should be encouraged to wear masks.”

“No leaf blowing on Saturday and Sunday ‘till 10:00 [AM]. Not ‘till 9:00 [AM] on other days. Could possibly use electric.”

“Mon–Fri, 9-5. Sat, 9-12. No Sundays.”

“Restrictions on the use of leaf blowers only as to time of day.”

“M–F, 8 AM–5 PM. Sat, 9 AM–5 PM, Sun. Noon–5 PM.”

“It would be overreaching and unreasonable to ban the use of leaf blowers. Reasonable restrictions to use during normal business hours, however, would be appropriate.”

“Mon–Fri, 8-4 PM. Sat, 9-12. Sun, None.”

“I favor restrictions on leaf blowers. [They should] be used only during working hours (9-5) and most importantly the refuse must be bagged and deposited, not simply slown across the street.”

“We agree about undesirable noise pollution and health risks, but practically all gardening services use these. Suggest that ROPO reps consult the major gardening services to get their support.”

“Leaf blowers should only be allowed to operate between the hours of 10 AM and 5 PM, Monday through Friday.”

“We live on 5 acres and to tidy up the leaves and twigs on our property using only a rake would take all my gardeners’ time. Because our property is so large and we don’t have neighbors I feel that we are not bothering anyone else. Also our gardener does use the appropriate protective gear. We would be agreeable to not using the blower along the street.”

“I think this is a brazed attempt to gain support for banning leaf blowers. I oppose. Cut restrictions on hours only that are reasonable- 8-5 PM each day.”

“At a minimum, we must put some parameters on their use.”

“Restrictions on hours, days, (no holidays or Sundays) and blowing into the drains.”

“I do not believe a complete ban on leaf blowers would work in Houston. Many lots in River Oaks are very large and our climate is sometimes very hot. Might not a complete ban result in messier yards rather than the lovely gardens we now enjoy?”

“Timing- no leaf blowers before 9 AM or after 6 PM! Peace! But banning the leaf blower would be like saying, “no more computers.” A step backward in technology- I think not! Unfortunate for us but the people who use them, get the job done in ½ the time! Time is money and money makes the world go around unfortunately!”

“I would enjoy a ban on blowers, however, I am a widow with almost 2 acres I could not maintain properly without it.”

“I think blowers should be used only between the hours of 9:00-5:00, Monday through Friday. They should definitely not be used on weekends or when people are trying to sleep.”

“Although many restrictions (noise) seem very difficult to enforce.”

“Not before 8:00 am Sat. nor after sunset on any days.”

“certain hours, certain days on certain streets, electric only.”

“try electric only 9-5 weekdays/ not on weekends for starters. If this doesn’t work, then a complete ban should be put into effect.”

“use only on certain days (mid-week) and during allowed hours- 10:00am-4:pm.”

“no weekend use, use only 8-5pm.”

“restriction of hours and days of use”

“Personally, I don’t know why many yard maintenance people don’t sweep and bag debris. I am tired of people blowing their debris onto my property or into the sewer. However, I think limited use- certain time of the day and never on Sunday’s would be fine. Electric blowers aren’t as noisy, so they are okay- with limited use.”

“All yard equipment rise should be restricted to 8:00 am to 5:00 pm weekdays.”

“I would support a ban, if I was assured that my gardener wouldn’t double his price- How about restricting the days and the hours instead. Using a blower when the ground is damp reduces the dust cloud. When my neighbor has her yard done on Sat. my neighbor on the left has hers done on Friday… I have mine done on Thursday. It’s very noisy almost all afternoons. Unfortunately, this is how it is at my house. However, if I only had 1 day of blowers it would be an improvement- It would allow certain gardeners their necessary too and yet appease the rest of us. Essentially, what I’m suggesting is maybe designating 2 yard work days during the week, for contract gardeners with blowers. However, please don’t restrict the owners from the occasional weekend quick cleanup when there are no contract workers in sight. Let’s just restrict gardeners, and not too much so that we don’t all suffer.”

“I would not object to restriction of blowers to reasonable hours and perhaps, to reasonable sizes. However, I do object to a complete ban of leaf blowers.”

“restrict 10 feet from city curb.”

“Ban gas powered blowers (electric okay) and restrict times for use. Monday through Saturday 8-5.”

“No blowing leaves and trash into the street! Minimize hours used.”

“I do think it is crucial health wise to reduce the use of leaf blowers. However, I think it is far more important to illuminate River Oaks as a neighborhood.”

“it would be okay if the engines were four cycle or electric.”

“only one should be used at a time and only for heavy accumulation of debris- not for scarce leaves that can be easily swept.”

“I’ve heard that in California, in some areas, you are required to have a certain type of leaf blower that is not as loud. I am a stay at home mom and the noise level around my house is a nuisance!”

“I think the restriction should be on when (time) leaf blowers can be run during the week and on weekends.”

“My concern is control of size and type of houses being built and the best ones taken down.”

“I’m very concerned about the equity that the independent yard men have in these blowers- somehow it does not seem fair to change the rules on them.”

“Leaf blowers have there place in Houston because of so many trees and the impact on the sewer system without them. A restriction on size and noise level and times used makes sense to pursue.”

“While some reasonable restrictions which balance competing interests would be nice, a total ban seems uncalled for.”

“While I find leaf blowers at any time enormously disturbing, I think a complete ban on their use would be impractical.”

“Not on Sundays or before reasonable hour.”

“ I agree with leaf blowers being too loud. Sometimes they will have their blowers on full throttle for an hour before turning off.”

“I would not fight a ban, but prefer to restrict sound levels and hours of use.”

“No Saturday leaf blower nor before 9 a.m. weekdays nor after 3 p.m.”

“Electric powered leaf blowers should be ok. If gas powered leaf blowers are not banned then hours should be restricted to Monday- Friday 8am-5pm only, no weekdays.”

“With all the beautiful live oaks trees we have at this area and with month of March everywhere is covered with leaves it’s very difficult to collect without leaf blowers.”

“I would support a ban on blowers before 7 am. I think a total ban would increase the cost of yardwork.”

“Use electric blowers for lots under 15,000 [sq. ft.]. Do not allow leaves blown and left in the street.”

“Time of day restriction, i.e. 10 am through 4 pm. Maybe gardener should be required to wear hearing protection.”

“I would support a ban on the use of gas powered blowers. I am ok with electric powered leaf blowers. No pollution and quieter.”

“Restrict the time they are allowed to be used; is. The same as lawnmowers.”

“Allowed only during working hours, on weekdays. Note: it is fine with me to eliminate completely.”

"I am in favor of restricting use to only certain times of day and requiring that leaves be bagged, not blown into the drainage system or into a neighbors yard."

"No reason to have noise before 8-8:30 during the week and 10:00 am on weekends. "

No Ban on Leaf Blowers: Back to top

“Leaf Blowers do not bother me and many of your claims are overstated and exaggerated."

“The existing restrictions (ex. 8 am start for lawn services, construction, etc.) are sufficient. Banning the use of leaf blowers would undoubtedly increase the cost of lawn maintenance.”

“I like to clean my back porch personally and not use gardeners. It seems all “your” Californian people are moving to Texas because of the restrictions, taking of private property rights and taxes.”

“Thank you for your ballot and information. I found it all helpful. I continue to believe that the benefits of having a yard quickly cleaned while parents are at work and children are at school greatly outweigh the negative effects. As technology is improved, 4 stroke blowers will become the norm and will eliminate much of the negative noise and pollution side effects. Obviously, (and thankfully) the issues that we have with leaves and grass are much different from those of the Southern Californian desert.”

“If necessary, ban could be Saturdays or Sundays. Yard crews have a tendency to blow leaves in the street and not clean their mess.”

“If you will eliminate cars on our street- and speed bumps, we might agree with [the] leaf blower ban. The cars screech, scrape, blow dust, [and] pollute every bit as much as leaf blowers. Landscape bills will escalate if leaf blower work has to be hand done.”

“The danger is to the workers- they should wear masks- raking is too slow! These men can do more jobs each day thus make better earnings.”

“Wh[ile] I understand your concern, I believe the ban on leaf blowers will aesthetically jeopardize the neighborhood. We chose to live in one of the most polluted cities in the US, the use of blowers, I believe, is minor compared to other pollutants in the air.”

“They are a “necessary evil”! However, they do provide a fast way to clear yards of leaves, etc. and are necessary to all the large homes and property in River Oaks. Each person’s property is their own business!! We are already restricted to a time when they can be used- after 9:00 AM and before 5:00 PM.”

“I disagree with most of your “parade of horribles”- except that I think common courtesy should result in leaf blowers being used during regular business hours. But I don’t want to have to risk hearings and court battles over “who did what to whom” and “when”, etc.”

“The price we pay for healthy trees is lots and lots of leaves- without a mechanical aid to assist in the clean up, we probably would have leaves everywhere- clogging every drain.”

“I deplore them, but I think policing this would be a hassle.”

“I am opposed to a ban on leaf blowers. I might be willing to agree to restrictions that are responsible (i.e. none before 7 AM or after 5 PM).”

“What would the alterative be? Pay a huge increase in yard maintenance to have walkways and driveways swept? That is not reasonable!”

“But [no leaf blowers] before 8 AM”

“I would prefer if leaf blowers were electric (as my yardman’s is), but also [I’m against] any restrictions which restrict my right to do what I want on my own property.”

“I would normally have answered “Restrictions”, but the tone of your materials was very off-putting.”

“I believe in freedom from excessive regulation. If you desire to regulate something, why not set air pollution regulations- they are significantly more important.”

“They don’t bother me or my family”

“I use an electric leaf blower. It is much more quiet and odorless. I would certainly not go back to handraking leaves."

“The cost increased to everyone on their landscape maintenance without blowers would be outrageous. You should encourage everyone to use responsible contractors who have modern less polluting equipment.”

“Have you thought about the effect this will have on the people who do our yards for living? There main concern is putting food on the table & paying there bills. The time it would take to sweep would harm them and cost them more money.”

"I think a leaf blower is a necessity for our yard. I would be willing to limit its use to once every other week for yard maintenance only.”

“the last place I want to be compared to is Beverly Hills, CA. Stop trying to fix things that are not broken.”

“Enforcement is difficult. Encourage homeowners to send “pledge” of no blower usage to surrounding neighbors. Many may reciprocate.”

“The alternative to a leaf blower is a rake and a raker. That’s too expensive. Reduce decibels of the blowers.”

“No ban necessary.”

“Leaf blowers are a necessary evil. I live I a wonderful area and without the leaf blower, leaves would overtake my yard.”

“city ordinance is sufficient.”

“I am not crazy about the noise either, but the air we breathe from polluted chemicals is already going to kill us! Besides, I would hate to follow liberal CA. in anything we do here.”

“We feel that there should be no ban on the restrictions on the use of leaf blowers. Because we have the small leafed oaks, we do not have a large leaf problem. In fact, most of the leaves in our yard are from our neighbors trees.
I do understand your concern One Saturday morning after a run in the neighborhood, I was sitting on the porch reading the paper and enjoying the beautiful day. I had only briefly settled in when a lawn service truck pilled in across the street and began work at my neighbors home. I did truly resent the noise pollution on my calm Saturday morning.
However, it was not merely the leaf blower but the lawn mower and the weed whacker that disturbed my Saturday morning. Just as many River Oaks property owners have, we have vines that grow on our fences. These vines must be trimmed more often than we wish. It is not practical to trim that amount of vines with a hand held clipper, and so an electric clipper is used.
We are not concerned with the pollution elements of the leaf blower although we recognize them. As a neighborhood runner, I am very aware of running by a home during the lawn maintenance and leaf blowing process.
However, we feel that the regulation to offset he minor noise pollution that we have experienced would be too far reaching and overbearing. In order to truly eliminate the noise pollution that we experience, we would have to require blade mowers and hand clippers for all the trimming that is done on our properties.
Even banning the noise during certain hours of the day becomes too complicated. Even when considering allowing the noise from 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM on Monday through Friday some residents still feel the noise greatly interfered with the coffees, lunches, and teas that we all host from our churches, schools, and charitable organizations.
Because noise pollution is the only thing that bothers me, probably a restriction on having yard work only accomplished on three day would give me four days of noise free enjoyment. However, weather patterns even complicate that simple solution. For these reasons, we do not support the ban on leaf blowers.”

“Although leaf blowers are noisy, they are a necessary piece of equipment to a gardener. If gardeners are forced to go back to raking leaves it will be considerably more expensive to have gardeners because it would take so much more of their time.”

“I believe there are city ordinances on loud noise. I do not want to be lumped together with city mangers and lawyers and Malibu, Beverly Hills, and Santa Monica.”

“Consider weekend bans only. Most people are at work weekdays and unaffected. Raking leaves is not an option for some with acre plus lots due to increased labor costs. Houston is hardly Beverly Hills!”

“My yard man has 3 small children he supports by working two jobs- in the day for a sprinkler company and then doing yard work in the evening. If he had to rake my yard it would limit his ability to complete my yard in one evening, especially during daylight savings. He would be unable to do 2 yards in an afternoon after work and thereby greatly impact his ability to support his family.”

“My leaves and my blower- I can use and blow if I please, on my property.”

“We don’t have a problem with them.”

“After mowing- loose clippings-etc wouldn’t be swept up! After raking- Big leaves to trash- but bits and pieces would litter”

“This would require long [sic] care maintenance companies to sweep and rake, which would severely increase cost to home owner.”

“We chose to maintain our own yard and the leaf blower is a very important tool in keeping the yard neat & clean. I feel if leaf blower’s [sic] are banned, the appearance of the neighborhood will decline.”

“Are you going to come RAKE my leaves or pay for someone to?! You couldn’t pay anyone enough to rake all our leaves!!

“In general restrictions of this kind are unnecessarily punitive. Dialogue and education with materials of the kind you provided are a mere appropriate venue for change.”

“restrict time of day, not on Sunday.”

“In my 11 years in R.O. I have not been bother by leaf blowers- I surely do not think to follow California’s laws on regulating our lives.”

"I understand the concern regarding noise; however lawn mowers, edgers, etc. also make noise. It would not be possible to maintain the properties without these tools. We need to ban irresponsible users of these tools."

Tree Removal with Board Consent: Back to top

“Would love to control tear down of original RO homes by noted architects not to mention their replacement with over built stucco “McMansions.”

“I would actually like something stronger that would make it clear that the presumption is that trees are not to be removed unless absolutely necessary.”

“The board’s rules should be stringent! In West U, even “trash trees” have calipers measured before a tree is allowed to be removed. Of RO continues to allow the destruction of lovely trees for the construction of ugly houses—we are in trouble!!”

“Trees under a certain diameter should be able to be removed without board consent.”

My husband and I have lived in River Oaks for 10 years. I am ashamed to say that while this issue has been on my mind since we moved here, I am only now trying to address it. I would like River Oaks to establish a yard waste recycling program. I see so much yard waste that could be put to good use if it became compost. In thinking about he possibility. I know that several issues must be addressed: How to collect the waste, Where to store the compost and personnel to maintain the project.
Hopefully some of the expense in operating the project could be made up of potential savings in charges we currently incur for disposal of the yard waste. And if there is an abundant supply of compost, it could be made available free of charge to River Oaks homeowners as needed.

“It is a very sad thing to see so many trees being destroyed so that some huge mostly ugly house can be erected. We went to great expense to save what is arguably the larget cyrpress tree in Houston when we built a new house on the lot. This needs to stop or we’ll have to change the name from River Oaks to River Bush!” – A.B.

“We have been very upset about the removal of beautiful, healthy trees that we loved. Urban wildlife, including birds depend on these trees! Trees clean air pollution! We need all healthy trees! Thank you!”

“We have owned three different homes in River Oaks and have always preserved our trees!"

“The removal of the home and trees at the corner of Del Monte and River Oaks Blvd was unconscionable. The association must put in stronger regulations regarding tree removal and the size of house that can be built, based on the size of the lot. Residents should have the opportunity to comment on any projects involving home demolition or tree removal by written comment and a public forum review with the board. We are in the stone age on this issue.”

“I strongly agree that we should do everything we can to preserve & enhance the natural forest in River Oaks! I am very disappointed in the way the new trees were planted on the espeanade on Kirby Ln. Instead of being placed in a natural-looking random fashion, they were planted in a straight line! Was there no oversight?”

“I have seen so many hald century old trees cut down in River Oaks it is disgusting!”

“The trees are what distinguish River Oaks from most other areas. All the renovations and new constructions are altering the beauty and uniqueness of this area.”

“Should apply to trees over a certain diameter (6” ?).”

“I strongly support deed restrictions that carefully and prudently save our trees. Additionally, if you build (new construction after leveling older home) too close to a large tree, it often becomes stressed and dies. Look at how close a huge new home at #8 Briarwood Circle comes to a lovely and large live oak. It will likely die. So in addition to saving trees, we should consider how close a new home can be to the trees we want to save.”

“Decisions have to be done in a timely manner and without personality conflicts. We had too many trees in front of our house when we moved in 10 years ago. We could not see as we left our driveway. So we took some out. I would hope decisions such as that could be made quickly.”

“I would suggest that board deliberation be speedy as people will otherwise be upset by excessive red tape. Perhaps this should be on the agenda at each meeting and clear guidelines should be established.”

“Two fabulous trees were cut one house west pf me, probably the larget magnolia tree in R.O. & a crepe myrtle that stopped traffic where is bloomed. I still haven’t gotten over it!”

“Trees are vital to our neighborhood! If one is unhealthy or unsightly plant another one in its place.”

“Not only should there be consent but there should be some requirement for replacing the tree with another.”

“I agree maintaining the trees on parkways and esplanades in RO is essential.”

“Some form of mandatory tree inspection. There are many trees in the area which are old and rotten- and dangerous.”

“A note from an arborist or copy of an invoice showing need for removal might be helpful in documenting tree removal.”

“The trees in RO should be saved when at all possible.”

“Put size restrictions on trees; small trees exempted.”

“I wish there were a third box suggesting restrictions on tree removal, since there is much everyday maintenance that should not have to go through the board. Irresponsible wholesale of trees should be forbidden or at least controlled.”

“Board Consent may be burden – some for those generous volunteers that serve. A separate committee appointed by the board, may need to be created.”

“All efforts should be made to save our old, beautiful trees. Don’t know if property law would interfere with the viability/intent of this proposition.”

“Criminal what the new owners of the lot on Del Monte & RO Blvd did. I knew the Frames when they lived there. I’m happy Mrs. Frames didn’t have to witness this & I’m sure her son David is livid.”

“The board should not have to approve the removal of a dead tree. Homeowners should not have to wait for the next board meeting to remove a tree that is endangering property. – Example, if a tree was struck by lightning.”

“Any tree removed must be replaced - like West U – if they can do it, R.O. can do it.”

“River Oaks – a neighborhood named after its trees for heaven’s sake – should be leading, not logging behind other areas in tree preservation and replacement (of older specimens).”

“A minimum size should be established.”

“I feel the splitting of property and the removal of trees to build needs to be addressed le building several homes on one piece of property.”

“I am for reasonable restrictions re: Mature trees – not all trees.”

“We need a limit on the diameter of trees to be removed, ie. Less than 4” diameter, o.k…”

“There should be a mid-way position such as for leaf blower restriction.”

“Too many trees have already been removed.”

“They should be of a certain diameter to require permission.”

“Given that the Board approves (and disapproves) architecture. They should also do the same with Healthy tree removal.”

“This will require definition, size, etc. No consultants or new staff required to monitor!”

“We have an old oak in our front yard – it’s been very sick for a long time. …is helping us. I think if there needs to be a special distinction for very weak trees.”

“Example: Please look at the lot next door to me at #1… They took a beautiful terraced lot and bull dozed down all trees to the property lines except for a few at…. He removed an old house and swimming pool and then lowered the lot about 6 feet and leveled it toward the ravine. What took nature hundreds of years was destroyed in on day!”

“What happened on Del Monte is obscene.”

“We cannot plant hedges but we can cut down beautiful trees?! Palm Beach, FL. Is gorgeous because of the hedges & trees.”

“With provisions that the board will keep homeowners wishes a #1 priority and make reasonable compromises.”

“Or – tree removed ok with an obligation to plant two or three new trees for old tree removed.”

“I was on the West U. zoning board years back. I believe West U’s restriction is trees have enhanced value.”

“I think it is obscene when new buyers tear down tasteful existing homes. These “square footage hogs” usually build an oversized home for the lot and destroy all trees and shrubbery. The area is named River Oaks after all!!”

“Fantastic! Now lets take on historic preservation and removal of historic architecture if we have any left!”

“I do not feel as sure about this issue as about the blowers. I feel this is much more complex since people tend to build on almost the entire lots. What would make more sense is to restrict % of the lots that can be occupied by a building and then there would actually be room for trees.”

“Trees are so very important to the environment and to the value of your home. We need a policy to add new trees for any taken down!”

“Conditions; i.e. size of tree to be removed.”

“we are very concerned about the removal of healthy trees. The house build next to us removed over ten large trees.”

“It’s a shame when people move into an established neighborhood and alter the landscape that make it appealing in the first place.”

“We’ve got to keys these healthy trees. There should be a fine if no consent from board.”

“Replacement 1-1 of tree is to be removed. Potentially to somewhere in River Oaks.”

“Only hard woods such as oaks should have this protection.”

“For trees over certain diameter size and variety (junk trees don’t deserve extra protection).”

“This should be limited to street frontage and not to rear gardens.”

“I think the Board has done a terrific job maintaining the building standards for R.O. Would like to be designated a historic neighborhood.

“The trees are what make this neighborhood what it is.”

“We only wish this had been in effect last year, before neighbors removed 3 large pines!”

“Sensible guidelines need to be available as a basis for the action. People who pay handsomely for a lot who are then restricted from building the house they want may challenge the legality of this.”

“From time to time we remove small yaupons & cherry laurels from our property. These are all understory trees & we do so to allow more light to the property. Please don’t include these small insignificant trees in the ordinance.”

“But only when trees are healthy should the board be involved. Dead, sick trees shouldn’t go before board.”

“For every tree removed, one should be planted.”

“Save the trees.”

“The beauty of the neighborhood has been the balance between size of the house and the gardens with old trees (mature ones) and other greenery. This is changing very quickly with some of the new development.”

“Take the lead from West U!”

“Very disturbing. They remove trees to build houses that are garish & too big for the log. Ugly!”

“We have had beautiful trees on the lot behind us completely cut down. Now we have a great view of power lines, little shade, not to mention, the loss of large, old, and beautiful oaks and magnolias!”

“I think tree removal of important trees such as Live Oaks should be approved.”

“It would deter unnecessary removal of healthy trees.”

“You should push for a limitation on all types of impervious cover. The current ability to complete build out a lot not only results in tree removal but also exacerbates flooding!”

“There would need to be standards which would govern board consent so that property rights were not subject to arbitrary and capricious decisions.”

“Yes- we understand that new construction sometimes needs to remove trees- but how many and with what do they replace them? Concrete? Brick front yards? Not acceptable!”

“Can we put restriction in deed requiring certain # of existing trees be kept, also # of trees required per size of lot, limit on size of tree that can be cut down, etc. Just ideas that are popping into my head. We renovated a house and added on- we saved as many trees as possible (cut down 2 but one was very sick and other was too close to existing structure and resented danger). We would have been happy to have gone thru a process with the board to get approval to cut these down- also wish there was a sq. ft/size of structure restriction to ratio of land to prevent townhouse type development. Want to see yard, sky trees, etc.!”

“Stop tearing down the forest!”

“Especially w/ approval of house plans or remodeling-”

“If by an act of nature, (storm, disease, etc.), you should be allowed to remove the tree without board consent.”

“If the board consents, it should be made clear that they’d have to replace the tree with another one on the same piece of property. The city usually requires this anyway.”

“On our block we have witnessed the removal of all established trees on several lots even when the trees would not interfere with new construction. We would love to retain those established trees that do remain.”

“There should be an urban plan in River Oaks to keep the trees. The streets look too bad with trees in some spots, then nothing in the next one. There should be an historic preservation of the trees in River Oaks.”

“I am appalled at the recent examples of thoughtless tree destruction in our neighborhood. It is an assault upon not only nature, but community and habitat- not to mention aesthetic considerations and historical sensibilities.”

“Should look at green space requirements like West U- i.e. new houses can only cover X portion of the lot.”

“We are losing our architectural integrity as a neighborhood. River Oaks needs trees for shelter from the elements of nature and the air we breath.”

“with size limits.”

“great idea”

“I wholeheartedly support your efforts re saving our trees. Some of my neighbors have become upset at times because of my stance on saving trees. Good luck.”

“Mature really trees only.”

“Healthy trees should not be removed without board approval. If removed, board should require replacement elsewhere on property. Examples of permitted removal would include construction of large home and only if tree is in the footprint of the large home.”

“Replace 2 for 1 with large new trees.”

“I believe board consent should only be necessary for those trees of a certain size and type- (say for example an oak tree with a trunk circumference of 30” or more) (I really don’t know off hand what would be a reasonable trunk size to specify).”

“Easy to get around a ban on tree removal. I simply kill the tree first.”

“Would like to see strong restrictions.”

“Healthy tree removal. Other should be allowed without problem”

“How can large trees be identified? Guess more control over new construction is a must.”

“The diameters of trees on a property should be measured before the start of new construction. A tree can and should be made before construction and the board should approve any plans for new construction. If trees are removed during construction they should be replaced in kind upon completion.

“I believe that any healthy tree that is removed must be replaced by another tree on your lot.”

“I’d rather not remove any healthy tree if not completely necessary.”

“[Tree removal only with board consent] if you can create a way to not drive the board crazy with micro-management and angry residents.”

“I believe we need to protect the trees in River Oaks form indiscriminate cutting and removal.”

“Too many beautiful trees can be saved and architecture needs to be monitored much more closely- materials etc.”

“We should protect our trees and beautify our surroundings.”

“We are devastated about the loss of even one established healthy tree in our neighborhood, much less the 22 on one lot! I don’t see what we can do about the builders who buy up lots to build and sell the hugest houses, raping the land in the mean time. To me, that’s a big part of the issue/problem.”

“Power companies are also destroying the character of our matrure trees as they cut them away from power lines (between 5-7’). If home owners will trim before power co. they can prevent some of the damage.”

“We abhor wholesale and irresponsible of healthy trees in the urban environment and support tree removal only with board consent. We further feel that compensatory tree replacement be mandatory.”

“Reasonable restrictions would benefit the quality and future of R.O.”

“Please get some policy enacted. I live next door to a spec house, where most all the trees were torn down for a monster house. Thanks for working on this.”

“I love trees and hate to see new construction over build the lots and demolish trees.”

“Tree removal only with replacement at 1.5 X the diameter. That is, if you remove a 12” tree, you need to plant 18”; or three 6”; etc.”

“Should include clear guidelines so that consent cannot be unreasonably withheld. Perhaps, with appeal process.”

“I think the destruction of old homes and trees is making a negative impact on River Oaks. Bigger and newer is not always better.”

" I hate these modern houses and the West U habit of putting 5 gallons of houses in a 4 gallon yard. It's River Oaks not River Lots."

"A consultant arborist for the neighborhood would be helpful. Many of the water oaks in my area are dying, but I need help deciding on replacements. The clearcutting of vacant lots now seems routine."

Trees: No Board Consent: Back to top

“Private property rights should be preserved as much as possible.”

“I believe that if you remove a tree then you should replace it on the property somewhere else. I will never ask anyone if I can or cannot remove one no matter what passes. My property is my property and I will do as I please according to city of Houston code.”

“While I deplore the loss of healthy trees, the “cure” is much worse than the disease. We should not ever be eager to force all of us to go in front of “board” and “committees” for everything we want to do. Some board member have bad judgment just like homeowners.”

“I have just removed 3 healthy trees and I am so pleased, wish I had done it long time ago, but I did not think one should cut healthy trees. I think the decision is up the property owners.”

“We do not necessarily approve of some of the clearing that has been done, but we also not agree with more restraints on homeowners individual rights.”

“From a tall building River Oaks looks life a forest. The area cannot be clear cut. I am not worried about the trees as much as quality of houses.”

“I contribute to trees for Houston. I have paid big $ to preserve many old trees. But- the concept of a devastating “effect” of clear cutting on our neighborhood is a bit much.”

“Each person’s property is their own business.”

“Although I don’t approve clear cutting, I don’t want to entrust the decision to the board.”

“I think that for every tree taken, one more should be planted.”

“As much as I abhor cutting healthy trees, I believe people can do on their own property whatever is within the city statutes.”

“Property owners should be free to make their decision themselves. Most builders and owners understand that trees enhance their property value.”

“I currently think that the individual property owner should have the unrestricted right to plant and remove trees. I think having to obtain board approval to remove a tree on my property is too much abridgement of my personal liberty. As Patrick Henry said “Give me liberty or give me death!”

“Property Owners should have the right to dictate the look of their property. More owners in the neighborhood have the right to protect the surrounding neighborhood. Compromise, allow 25% of live trees on a property without board consent”

“I like trees but I also like property rights.”

“In Houston we are still capable of making decisions on our own.”

“I would support requiring a new tree to be planted when one has been removed and the location of the tree to be determined by the property owner.”

"I do hate to see a live tree cut down but I feel the owner has the right to decide when a tree has served its usefulness. We have a 30’ diameter willow oak that is very brittle. It is a huge tree but we are afraid some large limbs might fall on our home. There are some Chinese elms that are big enough to take its place. I don’t want the board to make the decision when I could remove the tree.”

“A lot of the old River Oaks are diseased and too old. We need to remove a lot of them and replant with new trees.”

“Some restrictions necessary but no board consent on all trees.”

“It’s unfortunate that trees sometimes have to be cut but this should be left to the property owner. West U’s policy is silly and has caused hardship without enhancing the area.”

“Owners have the right to plant and remove their own trees.”

“Private property, most people know the value of trees to a home and its resale value. Regulation is not necessary. One of the major complaints of West University is their oppressive rules of regulations.”

“we are very pro-tree but respect other people’s property rights.”

“Requiring board consent will lead to more disputes among neighbors and the board, than will be gained by the requirement for consent.”

“There are so many trees that need to be taken down. They are dangerous. We ought to be worrying about that hazard. Clear cutting is an bit of an exaggeration.”

“Private property rights outweigh environmental concerns.” –

“We will not remove any healthy trees from our yard, so I don’t think there is a need to have the board’s consent to remove trees.”

“I recently removed an old and decayed tree. If I had to wait for the board approval it could have been a safety issue. Who has liability in this situation?”

“While we don’t believe in cutting down trees if at all possible, come circumstances unfortunately call for it. We own a lot and plan to build a home in the next two years. The plan for the new house requires that two of the larger trees in the back be removed. However, our landscape plans call for planting 4-6 new trees on the property.”

“If I truly own the property then I own the trees as well.”

“I have mixed feelings about this one, on one hand I refuse to have to ask for consent regarding anyting of my property from anybody but on the other hand how do we know people are acting responsibly? I think I will let property owners decide.”

“Choice #1 sounds very much an encroachment upon the right of the landowner. This is Texas.”

“Difficult to enforce; what is healthy? I have removed trees, living a dead for 15 years. Also I have planted diverse replacements ( bald cypress, water oak, slash pine). Is my environment more or less healthy with such diversity and planned spacing?”

“I believe it is okay to remove trees without consent of the board. We had 2 old water oaks fall over in our yard for no apparent reason except age. A dangerous issue for a family with 2 kids under the age of four.”

“Given the only the 2 options I can’t support the first because its too arbitrary. However, I also don’t believe one should be allowed to clear cut a lot. You might consider limiting the cutting of trees if its to squeeze a big house on a small lot by coming up with a ration that if the first floor footprint square footage is greater than 33% if the kit size, this takes board approval to remove trees.”

“I don’t think we have a problem. Most homeowners regard their trees as an asset.”

“Trees naturally die and are relocated or not according to a property owners wishes. The removal of healthy trees is the issue , however sunshine is just as important as shade. In the case of an especially old or historic tree or group of trees let the board or ROPO vote on restraints on such occurrences. This information would be on the property restrictions and pointed out to a buyer before they bought such a property. The property owner could be asked to care for such an unusual or worthwhile tree or their deed would not be cleared if that was the restriction the board would care to pass. I am very much in favor of environmental responsibility but I believe in respect for the rights of property owners too.”

“In 30 Yrs of living here we have never removed a living tree! I cannot imagine the need to enforce that through board consent.”

“New owners of properties have the right to remove any trees they want to remove.”

“Tree removal only, especially with tear downs or building a new house on a lot and that is the issue of not caring for the tree on the properly so that it is running over the root system so that the tree dies two to three years after the new house is built. I suggest that a bond be required of the builder so that if any of the trees die on the lot, he should be made to replace it with a tree of the same type and age. As a matter of interest, when I built my house … I put in a number of mature trees including 3, 40 year old live oaks so I know that large trees can be put in if others die. Granted, the tree is expensive, but relative to the cost of a new house in River Oaks, they really aren’t. It is a shame to see the large trees pulled out or left to die by builders in our neighborhood.”

“I think it is an individual choice.”

“The possibility that River Oaks could adopt tree removal rules makes our blood boil. When I asked my husband how I could express how strongly we felt about these regulations, he was not able to describe his feelings in any way that did not include inappropriate language.
We Lived in West University for more than 17 years and have been in River Oaks for four years. We were residents of West University when their tree preservation rules were enacted and when they hired their chief enforcer. We lived in an original home for ten years, tore it down and built a new home which we lived in for almost seven years. Our property had some trees that we wished to maintain and some trees that would interfere with the placement on the lot of a larger home.
We very much wished to protect the trees that we were maintaining and imposed stricter restrictions on those trees as far as fencing, the mixing of materials and driving of vehicles or heavy machinery under or near the canopy. In addition, we engaged a landscape architect and planted additional trees such that we had no controversy with the rules imposed by West University concerning tree preservation. We feel that most homeowners would handle this situation similarly. It is common knowledge that mature trees on a property do enhance the property’s fair market value. We believe that most River Oaks Property Owners would wish to maintain the fair market value of their property and therefore would not abuse the right to destroy foliage. We believe that it is common sense to protect the trees that are on your property.
We understand that you are appalled about the trees being removed on the property on River Oaks Boulevard. We share your disappointment. However, in deference to the property owner, I would wish to ask some questions concerning the health of the trees, the future life of the trees, were trees already diseased, and whether that homeowner was planning to bring replacement trees. I have one close friend that has lost many trees during the past seven years on her acre-plus property here in River Oaks. They have small children and they have been extremely lucky that the trees had not fallen on their home (although one was inches away) or on one of their children or their vehicles. They are living in an original home and have had no significant remodeling or interference with the natural habitat. Why do I bring this up? Because many species of trees do have a limited life and will not live forever and can become a potential threat to our well being or the enjoyment of the property. And, yes, a tree preservation program would usually exempt diseased trees as well as recognize the replacement of trees.
We do not feel that this is a regulation that is worth the government interference and cost to administer. Instead, we have known families that have spent major resources to bring in, plant and nurse established larger trees when their property happened to have some deficit. We know four of these families personally. Two families have oeiginal homes and lots and just did not have the number of trees that they preferred seeing on their lot. Two other families lost a major older tree to disease and chose to do their best to attempt to replace it.
In other words, we don’t need a level of regulation to govern our behavior. We are mature, informed property owners. We have the faith in our fellow River Oaks Property Owners to trust their judgment about their property. We feel that the few exceptions to that judgment that we could disagree with are not worth the additional cost both financially and via the process of replacement and removal on our own property.”

“Tree removal should be the decision of the individual property owner.”

“When it is not hurting my neighbors, I like the idea of being able to landscape as I wish on my property. Let’s require replacement with comparable trees, when certain trees are no longer desirable.”

“People who buy property should be able to do what they want with the trees on their property- which are often quite expensive to maintain, get infested with insects, get into the power lines and cost a lot of money when they die to remove. They are highways for pests such as rodents. They are major hazards during bad weather storms. There should be enforced rules concerning trimming and pruning. I am SICK of power outages due to the people who do not spend the money to maintain properly their trees.”

“I believe there are sufficient deed restrictions.”

“I would rather see a requirement that new trees be planted for everyone removed. I hate to see trees removed but believe it should be the property owner’s right. P.S. I would not favor any restriction on tearing down old homes unless they have some unique historic value.”

“It is a free country.”

“I am in favor of homeowners retaining as many property rights as they can. People move into this neighborhood because it is an older, established garden community. I trust my neighbors to do the right thing and it has been my experience that removing a tree is never an easy decision.”

“Who’s board? Do you really think I would turn this authority over to an unelected, unauthorized, and unresponsive ‘board’?? If I decide the tree needs to be removed, do you accept the responsibility (legal, financial)??”

“Fifty years ago River Oaks and Tanglewood Blvd. consisted of mostly prairie with no trees. It is absurd to think that there is massive clear cutting going on. There are many sickly trees due to beetle infestation, root rot and interior trees. There should be no restrictions based on removal because sickly trees can fall and kill or maim. Large, heavy branches also cause a hazard! Have you seen a photo of River Oaks from the 50s? It is now a jungle compared to what it was. Let’s be real and understand that trees are great but also a hazard. One should not be restricted to removal especially for safety. I think there are more important issues to deal with rather than trying to make River Oaks some idealistic utopia where the wind doesn’t blow and the rain doesn’t fall. I am against any restrictions!!”

“Reluctant to give up basic property right. Perhaps moral suasion with neighbors and good taste- we hope- and manifest outrage for dumb choices is best course.”

“as much as [I] like to see big trees, property owners’ rights should not be controlled by a board as to whether you may cut a tree to build a house.”

“I hate to loose trees as well- but the trees on my lot were planted or at least grown from small planting by us and if they get too crowded as they may be now, we should make the decision of removal.”

“We have a small front yard and when we moved into our home, there were 4 trees planted in our front yard. A portion of our yard was cemented for a driveway parking spot, which meant the trees were on one side, except for 1 tree. To make matters worse two were old pines, one was a Southern magnolia and one was a live oak. It was way too many trees for a 65’ x 30’ space. I think outing too many restrictions on homeowners can be detrimental. Talk to residents in West U about that. Restrictions there have become ridiculous and I hear about it all the time. If I wanted to live with restrictions such as what you are proposing, I would move to West U.”

“If it is my property and my trees- I can do what I wish to do with them.”

“[Tree removal without the consent of the board] if new tree planted to replace old tree. For every tree removed, new tree must be planted.”

“ This issue is the right of the property owner.”

“While I think the removal of large healthy trees is shameful, it is, ultimately, a matter of private property rights and no board should regulate this property matter.”

“Some restrictions might be useful- like board approval for more thatn one tree. River Oaks was not a forest- it was a plains area like new subdivisions in far West Houston. Now we have many matures and some occasionally need to be removed for light and air. Mostly I don’t believe in banning things for our own good. The bigger problem is building these new huge houses on small lots. That is what is causing the tree cutting. That should be stopped for many reasons.”

“No one should dictate what I or anyone does to one’s property! When you pay millions for a property, you sometimes have to cut down trees to build a big house!”

“Property owners should have full rights over tree coverage on their own property. City right of way at sidewalk could be controlled. Not more.”

“There are my trees and affect the property value of my property. It is in my best interest to take care of them and I am the only one who should have the right to make that decision.”

“[The removal of large healthy trees without the consent of the River Oaks board of directors] with the stipulation that trees are replanted on the property to replace those that are removed. Undesirable trees don’t apply.”

“Require appraisal for only trees in front of home that are 30-50 feet behind the curb.”

“property owners prerogative.”

“I would prefer the property that my husband and I pay taxes on be left for us to decide what does or does not take place on it.”

“I believe it is fair to say that most people are responsible when t comes to their property and how they maintain it, including the planting of new trees.”

“I have to assume that people wishing to buy their new home will do all possible to preserve a healthy tree—unless it interferes with their construction plan.”

“Trees are a valuable and beautiful asset to a property and generally will be conserved by the property owner. The decision regarding tree removal on individually owned property should be up the owner, not the board.”

“I believe it is fair to say that most people are responsible when it comes to their property and how they maintain it, including the planting of new trees.”

Too mnay starter castles and Mc/Mac Mansions going up on lots too small- squeezes out the trees."

The board is not comprised of urban foresters of lanscape/ horticultural experts. Home owners are entitled to maintain their property as they see fit."

TREES: Miscellaneous

“Both approaches seem too extreme- why not either limit removal in specified parts of lot or require some number of trees per square foot. Key is one should not freeload on green space provided by others while denuding your own lot entirely. All should contribute to keeping neighborhood green.”

“I can’t fathom why someone would cut down a healthy tree- unless a construction project interferes (pool, house addition, etc.) under any circumstances, if trees are cut down, they should be replaced. If trees are in the way of power lines, they should be removed… obviously.”

“board consent should only be for new instruction. Owner should have discretion to remove sick or dead trees at his discretion.”

“We suggest that board consent be required for the removal of healthy trees larger than a 8” caliper.”

“It is so depressing to see beautiful old trees gone in 60 seconds. It will take another 80 years to replace it.!!!”

“there need to be people on the board or have a separate group with plant knowledge to oversee this.”

“This needs to be debated and have more input. We have “trash” trees our backyard along fence line which need removing because they are bad for our yard and driveway. I do not want a board telling me I cannot remove them. Parameters need to be suggested before I will issue an opinion.”

“Tree removal only with consent of people who know about trees. Don’t think the board knows about trees. Get some experts.”

“If a tree is dead or has cracked in two because of lightning or a hurricane or high winds, there should be no board approval. If tree is alive and well the board should approve.”

"I think there needs to be a middle ground—for trees cut, builders must replace a tree of “x” in diameter in common area on lot with owners consent.”

“Surely we don’t have the right to tell people what to do with their personal property. I am saddened at the loss of old trees. What’s the answer?”

“Removal of mature trees is happening because of desire to use the property differently, which should be a right, A compromise would be to require planting of twice the trees when mature ones are removed.”

“This should not be an “either –or” response. Who defines healthy? What if an aging tree is replaced with several healthy younger specimens. I am far more concerned about the amount of each lot covered by either concrete or structure. I would favor a deed restriction limiting lot coverage to X%. This would, in turn, save many trees.”

“Board consent only- As long as residents can have the option of removing that they i.e. don’t like location blocks views, unattractive, causes problems like debris… No board consent- only builders would be subject to tree removal with board consent.”

top · home · about us · contact us · links

air · energy · vehicles · health · living · business

Citizens League for Environmental Action Now
5120 Woodway Drive, Suite #9004 · Houston, Texas 77056
phone: (713) 524-3000 · email: info@cleanhouston.org

news · calendar · action · houston heros

articles - editorials - archives