VIDEO: ‘Gratitude gathering’ beneath two doomed Gatewood trees with advocates who say ‘housing vs. trees is a false dichotomy’

(The Gatewood Douglas Firs)

By Tracy Record
West Seattle Blog editor

Tree advocates who helped save Luma are branching out.

Tonight in West Seattle, they led a “gratitude gathering” that drew more than 40 people to pay tribute to two Douglas Firs that are among 16 trees planned for removal on a Gatewood lot where a house is to be built.

Organizer Sandy Shettler of Tree Action Seattle said they’re not sure these two can be saved as was “Luma” – she hasn’t even contacted the builder who owns the lot to plead the case – but she doesn’t want to see them go without at least a round of awareness-raising.

The trees – measured at diameters of 43″ and 27″ – are on a 4,200-square-foot lot in the 4100 block of SW Southern that, records show, had the same ownership as the house to its east until last year, when the house got a new owner, followed this past April by the separate sale of the lot to a West Seattle builder.

Shettler says she and her group were not there to vilify the builder and that they are not against housing – but they are against losing more “exceptional” trees to do it. (The Tree Action Seattle website declares, “The future is about housing and tree equity for all. Housing vs trees is a false dichotomy of the Old Way of unintelligent planning and short term profits for the few. We reject this limited thinking and embrace housing and tree equity for all.”) She says this project was cleared because the trees couldn’t be spared without the house being less than 15′ wide at one spot, but she contends the city has many homes that don’t fit the criteria, and showed a roughed-out sketch of how this lot could hold a home and accessory dwelling unit while sparing the two big trees.

Losing trees like these, lot by lot, is an ecological crisis, Tree Action Seattle contends. Leaders were joined in speeches tonight by West Seattle wildlife biologist Kersti Muul, who stated flatly, “If we don’t have trees, we don’t have whales” – trees cool and clean the air by the waterways that raise the salmon Southern Resident Killer Whales in particular need to eat.

While the two Gatewood trees may not be next to a salmon stream – though Fauntleroy Creek is only about a mile away – they are important to birds, she added, showing a photo of a mating pair of Merlins that she found nesting in the area seven years ago, with their offspring seen nearby ever since. Her photo even appeared in the book Magical Merlins” by Bruce A. Haak; she sent us this photo post-event:

The Merlins need tall evergreens for nesting – “mostly Douglas Firs.” She offered one more point for contemplation: “We have wants, Wildlife has needs.”

We recorded her remarks as well as those of the Tree Action Seattle leaders:

Shettler said they’ve been hearing from so many local people about doomed trees, she’s planning a West Seattle section on their website. (Friday update: That page is now live.) They’re also fighting for changes in the city’s new tree ordinance, which they say actually reduces protection possibilities for exceptional trees by giving the city less leeway in considering their fate. They’re hoping to make this an issue in the seven City Council campaigns and urged attendees to ask council candidates – Rob Saka and Maren Costa in District 1 – where they stand. “Our best hope is the new council.”

As the setting sun cast a golden glow on the trees, the “gratitude” part of the gathering began; Tree Action Seattle brought a basket of flowers and created a mandala on the pavement for people to pause to contemplate the trees and offer thanks for their existence.

Some then left; many of those who stayed gathered for a group photo.

WHAT’S NEXT: The newest version of the tree-removal notice filed today for this site says removal might start as soon as a week from tomorrow. Unlike the “Luma” saga, Shettler didn’t expect “direct action” in this case, but each spotlight shone on a situation like this, she said, could plant a seed of inspiration for housing plans that spare trees.

47 Replies to "VIDEO: 'Gratitude gathering' beneath two doomed Gatewood trees with advocates who say 'housing vs. trees is a false dichotomy'"

  • Christine August 18, 2023 (12:42 am)

    Why not fight this with the builder? It’s ridiculous to cut down such noble and beautiful trees. Save the trees. I am sick of developers destroying trees and green space in West Seattle so  they can build big box houses and make millions. 

  • SadlyJohn August 18, 2023 (12:59 am)

    If only that activism could be directed where it counts, at the City’s greenspaces which continue to cause the overwhelming loss in tree canopy.

    Most Seattle greenspaces are in decline due to historic clear-cutting of evergreen forests, followed by deciduous regrowth (short-lived Bigleaf Maple and Alder), followed by invasive plant infestations (mostly ivy, blackberry, and holly) that prevent the natural regeneration of native tree canopy.  The Cascade Land Conservancy projects Seattle could lose 70% of its forest trees in 20 years (if we do nothing), and currently, English holly stems alone outnumber native tree starts 9 to 1 (Pioneer Park Forest Health Survey, 2008).” Puget Creek Watershed Alliance 

    If Shettler and her group want to save the trees and actually have a viable plan for housing while saving the trees, why would they not approach the owner who (he lives a few blocks away)?  

    We need to save our existing deteriorating dining greenspaces that are the major habitat for all birds and animals.  

    • Kersti Elisabeth Muul August 18, 2023 (7:16 am)

      The canopy study has been purposely misinterpreted and promoted so that folks just like you, make comments just like this. You have to understand relative numbers to properly discuss what’s actually happening with tree loss. We are re-analyzing the study and will share results.Furthermore, we fight ALL tree loss. These particular events are focused on private property; unnecessary removals of exceptional trees and often times we do interact with property owners, developers and tree service providers…this is Just one category of action. Maybe instead of sitting at the computer with misguided and misinformed criticisms, you could come out and participate.

      • Sadlyjohn August 18, 2023 (11:27 am)

         Kersti is claiming the long awaited canopy study data are wrong?  
        Please explain to folks like me how the data be “misinterpreted”?  
        Science and facts guide me.  
        And facts are that trespassing to stage stunt events on private property that will at least slow and increase the cost of needed housing will do nothing for the canopy, fresh air, habitat and the wonderful benefits of trees which the data (and any walk) show losing canopy by the acre due to our neglect. 

    • school bus driver August 18, 2023 (9:10 am)

      “English ivy starts outnumber native tree stems 9 to 1.” I see this everywhere. The problem seems insurmountable.

    • Josh August 18, 2023 (9:12 am)

      I agree. While it’s sad to lose trees every single person here lives on a lot that was once dense forest, saying that cutting down a tree that does not shade a stream harms whales is absurd and puts the focus in the wrong place. NIMBYism like this just leads to suburban sprawl.If we care about the health of streams, the canopy, and all that comes with it we should focus on removing encampments along waterways as they dump fuel and untreated waste into the streams, and make a concerted effort the beat back invasive weeds in those green spaces.  The trees that will be removed can be replanted, they are not old growth and were replanted in the past.  Tilting at windmills while grinding flour is worse than pointless.  

  • HoneyBun August 18, 2023 (3:26 am)

    Maybe more time planting trees in green spaces and on behalf of citizens who have property where a tree would be welcomed, but they cannot afford the tree, the upkeep, or do not have the physicality required to plant and maintain the tree for the first five years? Just sayin. Maybe Trees for Neighborhoods can use volunteers this Fall? This would get trees in the ground and growing and make a real difference.

  • anonyme August 18, 2023 (6:30 am)

    I doubt that there is a good reason why a new house (if necessary) could not be built on the same footprint as the old one.  New houses are being thrown up cheaply with maximum square footage for profit.  How about a return to a time when the price was related to the quality of craftsmanship, not mega footprints?  Changing a blueprint is easy; replacing old trees, not so much.  Construction methods and regulations need to be revisited, as the old ways are no longer sustainable.   The old clearcut and bulldoze method not only destroys trees but compacts the soil to a degree that makes new tree growth impossible.  It also contributes to runoff.  These two trees should be saved, and if the City approves their cutting, they should be taken to court.  It seems like there are more exceptions than rules to the exceptional tree rule.  I watched as some guys hired by an obscure investment group clearcut a lot next to me the other day, including a large tree.  No permit, of course, which is the other problem.  They have been reported, and I will follow up.

    • WSB August 18, 2023 (10:08 am)

      There is not an existing house on this site. Hard to tell without trespassing on the property, which we did not and will not do, but files suggest it held (may still, amid those 16 trees) a garage for the formerly co-owned house next door.

      • anonyme August 18, 2023 (12:33 pm)

        Thanks for the clarification.  Too bad neighbors couldn’t get together, buy the plot, and turn it into a neighborhood greenspace.

  • Sigh August 18, 2023 (6:56 am)

    Until I see this same urgency applied to cries for additional parking and parking requirements on lots, I will always have a hard time seeing this as anything but houses vs. trees.  Look at the scores and scores of comments in the Alki Elementary threads crying out for more parking-without a single mention of that impact on tree canopy, or the positive benefits saving that space for trees would have on the students.  If developers didn’t have such rigorous parking requirements, think of how many more trees could be saved or planted in spaces that are eaten up by driveways and garages.  If you’re only fighting against houses for the sake of the trees, and not also fighting parking requirements for the sake of the trees, it’s about the houses.

    • Chemist August 18, 2023 (11:50 am)

       scores and scores of comments in the Alki Elementary threads crying out for more parking-without a single mention of that impact on tree canopy

      Possibly because there’s not any significant trees on the alki elementary footprint and nobody’s proposing to demolish the southern steep slope for cars, at least not directly.  There are a few trees immediately adjacent to the elementary school inside the lot and if SPL presented plans to retain them in the rebuild I must have missed that.

    • datamuse August 18, 2023 (12:02 pm)

      How do you know they’re not? This is just one action. You might look into the organization mentioned in the original post, which I just recently learned about myself, to see what else they’re doing.

    • anonyme August 18, 2023 (12:41 pm)

      I don’t understand your argument.  In the case of the Alki parking lot, there are no existing trees that will be removed to make way for parking, so you’ve created yet another false dichotomy. Ideally, it would be great to add more tree canopy where it doesn’t currently exist, but your argument in favor of reducing restrictions on developers in order to increase tree cover is a poor one.

    • KM August 18, 2023 (1:35 pm)

      This exactly. I do hope the trees will be spared but I tend to steer clear from this type of advocacy for the reasons you outlined.

  • Wsea res August 18, 2023 (8:16 am)

    The houses near those trees have no idea how much they benefit from those trees and will be so sad once they are gone. They will feel way more hot and exposed. This happened to us and you really don’t know what you got till it’s gone.

    • Sadlyjohn August 18, 2023 (11:38 am)

      That is the precise reason that at events like this.
      They should be handing out potted firs  and information on the proper siteing, planting and care of them.  
      The city should ban grass lawns and promote healthy trees by providing incentives for homeowners maintaining large trees.
      I walk around this location and note many homes have no trees of value and some, none at all.  
      Trees are the benefit of all and the burden of the tree owner.

    • datamuse August 18, 2023 (12:03 pm)

      I’ve been grateful to my next door neighbors and their tall, mature maple tree that shades my house for twenty years. Especially during heat waves!

  • Morgan August 18, 2023 (8:36 am)

    The loss of mature trees that bring wildlife and other cooling benefits is short sighted as a city.also, a new house and an adu isn’t economically a replacement to cutting up for townhomes.Yimby ism will have consequences—zoning restrictions are going, not coming—and cannot fault builders for doing what is economical under the rules.Green advocates need to find a new pragmatic path —the one they’re on will have sad outcomes.likely Have to find a way to start paying to have tree convent tw to maintain them in neighborhoods given local govt power retreat in response to housing advocate pressure.

  • alkiannie August 18, 2023 (9:14 am)

    SadlyJohn, this isn’t an “either” “or” situation. It’s both. We need to preserve trees in all space – private and public.I agree it was kind of lame for them to go public without talking to the owner first, however the owner did make a decision, it was a bad one, and they are responding to it in their own way.  So, the owner is reaping what they have sown here;  if you don’t want flack, don’t make bad choices.Maybe their actions will encourage my buyers/builders to reconsider cutting down trees as they work out their home designs in the future.

  • Jort August 18, 2023 (9:16 am)

    This kind of stuff is so, so Seattle to me. Totally broken “environmentalism.” Saving two trees mostly for their aesthetic contributions. But that would sound shallow, so we say things like, “oh, it’s for climate change, the trees sequester carbon!” There are roughly 9.4 BILLION TREES on Washington’s forest lands, alone. And one mature tree can capture about 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, while the average automobile emits 4.7 metric tons of CO2 per year! That’s 215 trees per car!!!! But, yeah, one or two pretty trees in neighborhoods are the environmentalist priority?  “In this house we believe climate change is real.” As long as nobody does anything to my home values or my car, I guess. Absolutely broken environmentalism. It has literally lost sight of the forest for the trees. Just absolutely broken and foolish.

    • Melissa August 18, 2023 (11:08 am)

      Whooo, boy, man. Why ya gotta be so either/or? Why can’t I reduce my car usage, encourage housing density on existing lots, AND recognize that trees provide caarbon sequestration and significant cooling effects that help people and wildlife? 

      • James August 18, 2023 (12:51 pm)

        Is he doing either/or? Or just pointing out that these Pro-Climate people (good to be btw!) probably offset those trees and passed several houseless people to do so. We have bad priorities in this city. Aesthetic trees take a back seat to housing and transit. All day. 

      • Jort August 18, 2023 (2:36 pm)

        Why “either/or”? Setting aside the great irony of how car-centric planning has an absolute and total grip on every single aspect of American civic planning and design, I’m not saying this is an “either/or” issue, what I am highlighting is the insanely disproportionate amount of attention that two trees in one neighborhood receive in the name of “environmental concern” when the cars these people drove to the protest will emit more carbon than these trees will ever capture.  When people advocate for cities with fewer cars, they’re portrayed CONSTANTLY as fringe, unrealistic nutcases. But cars are an actual environmental threat! A serious one! True environmentalism — actual steps to protect this planet and its humans from climate catastrophe — means packing a LOT more people into MUCH denser cities, and SOON. Yeah, you’re going to lose some trees in giant suburban-style city housing lots. In exchange you save the planet. Tough trade-offs, sure, but that’s how it goes when you choose to blow off climate change until it’s almost too late. Sorry. 

        • Melissa August 18, 2023 (6:04 pm)

          I’m on your side, Jort, for the most part. I think we’re fools not to increase public transportation and bike infrastructure. I also think that we should be preserving big ol Doug firs instead of squeezing in a skinny single family dwelling on a hillside. I can, and do, embrace multitudes. Hell, I would like to see tax breaks for folks who give up their cars for bikes and public transportation. I’d also like for more people to understand what we do to the environment and ecosystem when we remove canopy.

    • Jeff August 18, 2023 (11:59 am)

      “In this house we believe climate change is real.” As long as nobody does anything to my home values or my car, I guess.That’s it in a nutshell.   Goes right along with “we need affordable housing, but my home value should go only upwards forever!”

    • Jethro Marx August 18, 2023 (2:13 pm)

      If your numbers are correct, we should all be able to keep driving happily: our state has about 3 million registered automobiles, which means each car has over 3000 trees happily sucking up every last bit of carbon dioxide.  Which means we could each buy like, at least five more cars and still be carbon negative, what? 

      “But wait!” you say, “It’s not that simple…” Of course it’s not that simple, and it is absolutely ridiculous to try to discuss a scientific phenomenon with people who do not care for logic, much less the art of science it spawned.  We should all stop throwing around propaganda numbers and hatred when it comes to climate change. 

      If you want to solve climate change you will need a time machine and a high tolerance for BS.  As for the tree, it doesn’t have to be anything other than an aerial island of habitat and a pretty thing to look at to be worth trying to save.  Good luck!

    • flauntyleroy August 21, 2023 (5:12 pm)

      OOOOOOO DONT HURT EM!!!!! some folks (land owners) r just not ready to give up their privileges 🙃

  • flimflam August 18, 2023 (9:30 am)

    While clear cuts and logging are obviously bigger culprits to tree loss I think saying trees vs housing is a false dichotomy is wrong. I mean, a tree lost is a tree lost be it for housing, logging, forest fire, etc

  • James August 18, 2023 (9:53 am)

    We need housing. Period. But I don’t care about density in rich neighborhoods like Gatewood. I want them near transit and built outwards. And cheaper.

    • alkiannie August 18, 2023 (11:10 am)

      Not sure how this is related to the post, but OK!

    • Niko August 18, 2023 (11:19 am)

      Or we could just stop the rampant over building and destruction of perfectly good homes in favor of condos and overpriced apartments

      • John August 18, 2023 (5:06 pm)

        Bingo!

  • Scarlett August 18, 2023 (11:47 am)

    Claiming that cutting a couple of trees is an ecological crisis is about the same intellectual level as dismissing the work of a climate activist because they fly to a climate summit. The rational, pragmatic environmentalism of a Rachel Carson has devolved into a blubbering, weepy therapy session.  

  • Rhonda August 18, 2023 (12:29 pm)

    Good for Tree Action Seattle and all who showed up. A recent report showed Seattle’s heat dome effect is one of the worst in the Nation and that 53% of Seattle residents live in an area that’s 5° or more hotter than the other 47%. It’s only going to get worse with higher density. Tree removal ruins quality of life, destroys urban wildlife habitat, increases air pollution, reduces CO2 absorption, etc. Urban heat domes also migrate and drift into our foothills and agricultural areas and heat our rivers and destroy forests. The terribly-hot nights we just experienced will become more frequent with fewer Seattle trees.

  • anonyme August 18, 2023 (12:31 pm)

    A beautiful tree (and most are, in one way or another) sequesters carbon just like an ugly one.  Don’t hate on this one just because it’s beautiful.  There may be a need for housing, but the way it’s being done doesn’t help that cause very much unless you happen to be a developer.  If you’re pro-housing and somehow think trees stand in the way (literally) then you should be focusing your efforts on controlling the types of housing being built – not minimizing the value of trees.  I’ve seen many lots in Arbor Heights clearcut to build a giant, overpriced box for a single couple, or a very small family, families that in the past would have lived very comfortably in 1200 sq. ft. or less.  We shouldn’t be destroying valuable trees just because well-to-do modern families never want to have to see one another.  Trees are dying everywhere, both from the effects of climate change as well as the wildfires that decimate entire forests.  Whether on public or private land, back yard or forest, every single tree is valuable.

  • Jen August 18, 2023 (12:48 pm)

    Trees are everything, absolutely everything. And if we can’t see the full loss when each and every tree comes down, we’re sunk. Jort, I often cheer on your comments, but your hyper and dismissive rant here is unnecessarily ugly.  Gratitude for their gifts and deep grief for their loss is entirely appropriate. We hasten collapse every time we flip on a chainsaw.

    • WestSeattleBadTakes August 19, 2023 (8:28 am)

      Go back and read his message. It is clear you didn’t understand a word of it. This sentence is exactly what he referred to and critiqued.

      We hasten collapse every time we flip on a chainsaw.

    • Jort August 21, 2023 (12:13 pm)

      If we don’t make the tough decisions necessary to get more people into denser cities — and soon — then the last thing you’ll worry about is a flipped-on chainsaw. It’ll all be gone. The “collapse” is actually hastened by continuing to pretend that two trees in an urban neighborhood are more important to save than the tens of thousands of acres of habitat destruction done to support fundamentally unsustainable suburban development. This is a tough environmental paradox for people to accept, partly because environmentalism, itself, has (like everything in America) been converted into yet another individualistic responsibility (“I sort my recycling!”). The planet is screaming at us, right now, to focus on what’s important. Two trees in a dense city are not “unimportant,” they’re just not nearly as important as building the density that’s going to be required to save this planet from its humans. Forgive me if I am more worried about grieving the loss of tens or hundreds of millions of human lives. This NIMBY environmentalism is a total joke. 

  • Mel August 18, 2023 (1:57 pm)

    This is so touching. Truly so beautiful and radical to state how this is not an either/or situation. To revere the trees, talk about their place and our place together. ‘Room for complexity’ feels like the needed future. I find this so inspiring, and surprising. Thanks for reporting on this. Thank you to Sandy Shettler and Tree Action Seattle.

  • Scarlett August 18, 2023 (2:32 pm)

    Trees need care.  I would not consider buying a house next to  two mature Doug Firs as their root structure tends to be shallow and they are prone to toppling in a high wind.  There have been many instances of trees falling and killing people, several in the Seattle area. Then, there is the problem of their needles, which clog gutters and grass lawns.  This may play a role in the decision to cut them down.

  • WestSeattleBadTakes August 19, 2023 (7:07 am)

    I find it more appalling that these trees will be taken down for a single home.

  • anonyme August 19, 2023 (12:07 pm)

    Please be aware that rules regarding the cutting of trees have changed dramatically.  A permit is now required to remove any tree on private property over 6 inches in diameter.  The fine is $5,000 per tree.  A permit is also required for pruning, depending on the extent of the pruning, and such pruning and/or removal must be performed by a city-approved arborist.  Unfortunately, it’s mostly private citizens and little old ladies who end up being slapped with these fines, while developers remain mostly immune.  These exceptions for developers, as in this Gatewood case, MUST STOP.  There is also another category of developer, the obscure LLC’s and flippers operating under the radar, pulling no permits, and doing work on weekends only because they know that city offices are closed.  If you see such work going on, try to take photos.  There is an easier way for reporting these days, although it is unfortunately only available M-F.  Simply call the SDCI violation complaint line at (206) 615-0808.  I called in an illegal tree-cutting a few days ago and an inspector was there within the hour.

  • SadlyJohn August 19, 2023 (1:40 pm)

    Seems a bit of confusion by Anonyme about the new tree codes.  
    There is no exception for developers.  
    In this case, the developer has followed the code.
    They have had a certified arborist visit the site and draw a plant a tree inventory, complete with site locations and species labeling.  
    The builder has also received a permit to remove the trees and submitted a required re-vegetation plan.  

    The inventories, records and permits are available online at DCI.

    The claims about private citizens and little old ladies being mostly fined while builders “remain immune” is false.

    And I am still waiting for the update promised about the illegal “clearcut” that has been reported.

  • Scarlett August 19, 2023 (3:30 pm)

    What qualifies as a “tree” after extensive pruning?  If one tops the tree, removes limbs that pose a danger to people, or and pounds nails into it to attach a birdhouse, is it still the same tree and  would these revisions qualify it for a mandala wreath and a gathering?  What about the trees that don’t measure up in terms of girth, height, or carbon storing, or species harboring –  are they not deserving?  A shrub can hold a robin’s nest, after all.  

    I understand the visceral revulsion associated with felling a large living organism like a tree down, but I worry that unbridled emotionalism is overtaking reason and that we erasing hundreds of years of scientific progress – or better “understanding” – and returning a pre-industrial society,  downward spiral where the end game is that rocks will have souls.  In my opinion, this is not science, but just a different flavor of religious anthropormorphism.     

  • Jort fan August 19, 2023 (5:32 pm)

    Jort is absolutely right (as usual) and it’s hilarious watching everyone get so mad about it. Truth hurts!

Sorry, comment time is over.