The Battle of the Branch: Why Ridgewood is Both Planting and REFUSING Hundreds of Shade Trees

Ridgewood’s Green Paradox: 79 Saplings Planted, But 40% of Homeowners in the West Saddle River Road area Said NO Trees!

photo courtesy of the Ridgewood Shade Tree Commission

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood, NJ, is famous for its beautiful, tree-lined streets, but the village is currently facing a surprising division over its canopy.

This past Saturday, an enthusiastic group of volunteers, organized by the Shade Tree Commission, successfully planted 79 new saplings in the Willard neighborhood as part of the Village’s “Adopt a Sapling” program, which launched in 2023. To date, the program has planted just shy of 200 young trees, showing a strong community effort to “re-tree” Ridgewood.

However, despite this success, the Village is simultaneously grappling with significant resident resistance to having trees planted on municipal property directly in front of their homes.

The Resistance: 40% of Homeowners Refused New Trees

As Councilperson Siobhan Winograd publicly revealed, approximately 40% of residential property owners in the West Saddle River Road area—who were selected to have shade trees planted on the Village-owned strip of land near their properties—refused the plantings.

Why would residents say no to a complimentary community asset? The answers, according to reader feedback, revolve around maintenance costs, liability, and existing municipal policies.

Homeowner Concerns: Why the “Free” Tree Isn’t Worth It

Readers chimed in with strong opinions, highlighting the financial and practical burdens that mature street trees can place on the adjacent homeowner:

1. Costly Maintenance and Neglect

• Janis argues that property owners have the right to refuse plantings because the town “does not take care of them, period.”
• Trees can be costly to maintain, often requiring expensive spraying for blights, which the homeowner is left to handle.
• Annual leaf cleanup falls entirely to the resident.

2. Liability and Storm Damage

• Peter shared a dramatic personal account, noting that in his area, the Village-owned grass strip is too narrow for large species like oaks to establish a deep, stable root base in the native clay/rock soil.
• He recounts instances where oaks blew over in storms, taking out power lines, leading to costly power surges that destroyed appliances.
• Peter states, “One tree for instance knocked power out for a week… the long term cost for us was well over $1,000,” proving that a cheap tree for the Village can mean huge, uninsured costs for the resident.

3. The “UnAmerican” $1,000 Tree Fee

• Janis also fiercely criticized the Village’s existing policy that requires a $1,000 fee should a homeowner need to remove an alive tree for any reason.
• She labeled the fee “ridiculous” and “socialism,” arguing it is un-American for homeowners who pay high property taxes to be penalized for managing the property they own.

A Call for Smarter Planting and Policy Review

While homeowners and the Shade Tree Commission agree on the beauty of a tree-lined village, the debate centers on the choice of tree species and the long-term division of responsibility.

Peter wisely points out that while “oaks and maples are cheaper,” the long-term liability costs are immense when these large species are planted in restricted spaces. He calls for planting smaller, more appropriate species, but acknowledges that “by the time they fall the current Council will be long gone—somebody else’s problem.”

Ridgewood’s Adopt a Sapling program is a positive grassroots effort, but the village may need to re-evaluate its species selection, tree maintenance policy, and removal fees to bridge the gap between its green aspirations and its residents’ genuine concerns.

 

Tell your story #TheRidgewoodblog , #Indpendentnews, #information, #advertise, #guestpost, #affiliatemarketing,#NorthJersey, #NJ , #News, #localnews, #bergencounty, #sponsoredpost, #SponsoredContent, #contentplacement , #linkplacement, Email: [email protected]