Your browser does not support modern web standards implemented on our site
Therefore the page you accessed might not appear as it should.
See www.webstandards.org/upgrade for more information.

Whatcom Watch Bird Logo


Past Issues


Whatcom Watch Online
Tree Removal Proposed for Sudden Valley


March 2002

Cover Story

Tree Removal Proposed for Sudden Valley

by Robert Schultz

Robert Schultz, a Sudden Valley resident, believes his last Whatcom Watch article helped preserve the Sudden Valley newspaper from board censorship. His email address: rschu@nas.com.

When the first plat of Sudden Valley was approved in 1969, its 1,200 acres became a threat to Lake Whatcom’s viabilily as a reservoir. The runoff pollution threat became reality with the construction of each new home that followed. Many trees have been cut over the years to make way for homes. There is the state Department of Natural Resources logging threat in the hills above Sudden Valley; other logging proposals have come from within the valley. If Yogi Berra came to Sudden Valley he would say it’s déjà vu all over again regarding logging proposals.

In 1987, the Sudden Valley Community Association (SVCA) commissioned an Olympia consultant to study what they called a selective “Tree Maintenance Program to increase long-term aesthetics and property values.” The proposed plan would have removed as many as 786 second-growth trees or as much as 400,000 board feet from a 40-acre section of Sudden Valley.

Many Canadian owners stopped paying taxes when their dollar plunged. Defaulting lots caused a glut in the valley’s property market. SVCA’s board claimed thinning out the forests would make property lots more marketable at higher prices because it would:

•Allow real estate agents to find lots more easily,

•Enable buyers to see entire lots and envision homes on them,

•Prevent root disease from spreading,

•Open up forests to sunlight, making land more attractive, and

•Nurture younger trees now being overshadowed.

Profit Margin for Sudden Valley

The consultant also said the SVCA could expect $20,000 to $25,000 profit. It would be a perfect world of busy real estate agents, happy loggers, supposedly healthier forests and prospective buyers who want a beautiful wooded community—just so long as trees don’t get in the way.

SVCA called this a pilot project, with logging profits put in a “separate trust fund for other forest management projects in the valley.” The scheme was a precursor of thin(g)s to come. The tax defaulters were also not paying SVCA dues. Clearing trees could clear the way for new dues payers.

Concerned Valley residents greeted this proposal with anger and skepticism. They were not soothed by the pro-sunlight, anti-root disease sugar coating. They formed a “Save Our Trees Committee.” The committee’s expert advisors found the plan to remove almost half the area’s trees harmful to the forest and environment. (Some logging would be on slopes as high as 30 degrees.)

The potential damage to their properties, roads and watershed would actually lower property values, not raise them. One expert claimed SVCA’s profit would reach as high as $50,000, not the lower figure mentioned by SVCA’s consultant.

Residents Refused to Turn Over Trees

After many months of expert claim and counter-claim, the scheme died of malnutrition. Residents refused to feed loggers’ and realtors’ appetites; they would not sign licenses turning their property (trees) over to the SVCA.

We jump from 1987 to 2002. A recent issue of the Sudden Valley Views  (a monthly newspaper) has a front page article about Azam Nader, the new owner of Sun-Mark Properties. This is legitimate news about her background and plans for her company. But, immediately under it on the same front page is an article by Ms. Nader, who is listed as a Views contributor. Here it is, slightly edited for brevity:

Can’t See the Beauty for the Trees

As the original real estate sales company in Sudden Valley, we at Sun-Mark Properties have seen the community and its property values decrease over the years. We feel that one of the factors that negatively impacts real estate values in this great community is the amount of trees and vegetation on some properties that result in problems for the potential home buyer.

Here are some of questions to ask:

•Do you have too many trees crowding your lot?
•Is your home “dark” even with the lights on?
•Are you having problems with not enough light because of excessive branches?
•Do you have too much moisture on your home due to direct contact with over-hanging branches?
•What does your roof look like? Is it clean or filled with branches and other debris?

We would like to help. We are in the process of implementing a tree removal program for Sudden Valley home owners. We already have a tree removal company in place and hope to get the cooperation of the Sudden Valley Community Association and the Architectural Control Committee (ACC) to begin this program.

For those interested, call for a tree removal request form…Once the removal request has been received from the Architectural Control Committee, a crew will be dispatched to your property. At no cost to the home owner, the trees and other debris will be transported from the property. At that point, cut trees will be the property of Sun-Mark. A portion of the sales proceeds will be donated to the SVCA.

It is our intention to make this a free service to all Sudden Valley home owners....

 

History Repeats Itself

There it is for all to see, familiar themes, then and now. “We’re doing this for your own good, we’re here to help you.” Homeowners’ reaction, as in 1987, is negative. Linda Marrom, who led the fight that stopped the state’s plan to clear-cut above Austin Creek, tells me she will fight this scheme as well. She speaks for a growing number of folks in the Valley in a letter to the Sudden Valley Views.

She writes that Sun-Mark’s statement about the amount of trees and vegetation negatively impacting real estate value “is a curious one.” She understands the need to cut hazardous trees or limbs and the removal of vegetation such as blackberries except near streams or wetlands.

Her letter states:

“Azam mentioned working with big logging companies, not small tree and landscaping businesses. She said a portion of the timber money raised would go to Sudden Valley, but the majority would go to Sun-Mark and the logging company of their choice. I mean no disrespect to either, but when special interests are involved most decisions are made by dollar signs, not by environmental protection. It’s just a fact, not an insult.”

What Happens Next?

At a SVCA board meeting, another real estate agent said that sales were moving fast because her clients wanted to live among the trees. A homeowner said that if buyers don’t want trees they should not come to Sudden Valley. So, what happens next?

SVCA general manager Steve Grieser says Ms. Nader told him of her plans but he could make no promises. Architectural Control Committee chair, Dave Scott, told me that “I think she’s trying to be helpful to the valley, but she has to follow rules like anyone else.” When I told him Ms. Nader would wait until she had enough homeowners and prospective clients to all apply for permission to “thin,” he replied that pressure from either side would have no effect on his decisions.

Neither Grieser, Scott, or SVCA president Jon Wolfe would comment on the merits of her proposal. The Architectural Control Committee guidelines allow removal of trees, limbs and vegetation for reasons of safety, fire prevention and maintenance of property values where unchecked growth poses aesthetic concerns for neighbors, etc. The guidelines were not intended as a marketing tool for realtors.

Loopholes Await Clever Legalist

The fate of this déjà vu logging proposal rests with the Architectural Control Committee and the board. The 1987 proposal was a creature of Sudden Valley management. The Sun-Mark proposal has no stated official support from SVCA. Dave Scott did tell me that money for SVCA will play no part in the Architectural Control Committee’s decisions. “But if she wants to give SVCA any money she’s free to do so.” He would be willing to meet with her as he would with anyone else and the guidelines will be followed.

Since any guidelines are subject to interpretation, the line between beneficial thinning and commercial logging could be too porous for comfort. There may be loopholes awaiting a clever legalist. Past events have made knowledgeable valley residents wary of such proposals.

Linda Marrom’s letter says she trusts SVCA to thoroughly scrutinize the Sun-Mark proposal and to adhere to Sudden Valley by-laws. She asks Valley residents to e-mail Steve Grieser at gm@ suddenvalley.com. Potential Sudden Valley home- buyers living in or out of our watershed might want to do the same.


Back to Top of Story