Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hazard Tree Removal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board defends removal of hollow beech tree after resident outcry in Ward 6
Summary
A more than 100‑year‑old beech in Ward 6 was removed after city forester assessments documented internal hollowness and high failure risk; some residents alleged improper motives including links to a data center and mayoral retaliation, which board members said were unfounded and pointed to documented TRAC assessments and outreach.
The Michigan City Tree Board on Jan. 7 addressed community concern after removal of an old beech tree in Ward 6. Board members said the tree was examined, photographed and recorded using tree risk assessment protocols and—after inspection—was found to be hollow and a potential hazard to homes, vehicles and pedestrians.
Phil, the city forester, described field inspection and documentation including photographs and TRAC (Tree Risk Assessment Qualification) forms. "You could stand on the base of that tree and look through it," he said, describing the visible cavity and a crack in the trunk. Phil said the presence of nearby homes, a church, power lines and parked cars created sufficient targets to justify removal on public‑safety grounds.
Nut graf: The removal prompted residents to circulate claims that the cut was related to a nearby data center or that it amounted to mayoral retaliation. Board members and Phil said those assertions were not supported by the record: Phil said the tree had been on the removal list for more than a year and the work was part of the US Forest Service grant‑funded removal program, and staff met with the property owner and the mayor's office to explain the process.
The board also discussed follow‑up logistics: stump grinding was delayed in some cases because contractors were granted extensions due to snow, locates and access issues, and the removal process operates as an assembly line where log trucks and grinder crews follow the removal crew. Members asked staff to prioritize grinding and cleanup in the affected neighborhood when practical and offered to help with goodwill measures, including planting a replacement tree on private property (not in the city easement).
Board members acknowledged the emotional nature of removing old growth trees and emphasized safety and documentation. One member said the situation illustrated how tree decisions can become highly charged in neighborhoods and called for continued outreach and clear public information. The board requested that staff circulate a fact sheet summarizing the assessment and the grant process to address misinformation circulating on social media.
The board did not reverse the removal; members said they would prioritize cleanup and pursue a replacement planting as an olive branch to the affected resident.
