I read today that my village and others plan to gut their tree-protection laws ["After Sandy: Wary eyes on LI trees," News, Dec. 2].
To allow the replacement of a multiton mature tree that generates many pounds of oxygen and aerates large swaths of soil with a tiny nursery tree is no real replacement. As a local activist, I took photos throughout East Hills of fallen trees, and I found that many had rotted trunks that could have been noted with simple periodic checkups. Other fallen trees were clearly top-heavy for their root systems. These are avoidable problems.
Also, failing to feed these big residential trees amounts to negligent maintenance. These are irreplaceable natural treasures. They fight global warming, provide habitats for local wildlife, and their shade and wind protection insulates our homes. The trees that remain now have been stress-tested at 70 or 80 mph!
Before this panicked reaction leads to anti-environment legal rollbacks, environmental impact statements are advisable, if not legally required by the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
Richard Brummel, East Hills
Every year, I routinely spend $1,000 to hire an arborist to trim branches and dead wood from town-owned street trees that border my property. These oaks are taller than 100 feet -- the like of which are currently seen uprooted throughout the town. No trees were lost on my property.
Two years ago, when the arborist was at work, the town sent a code enforcement official to stop him. We were ordered to cease violation of the town tree ordinance.
Later, I visited the town planning department and asked for an explanation. I was told I was not in violation of the tree ordinance. So much for my $1,000 and efforts to avert potential damage that year.
John Condon, Huntington Station