Musings On The Wausau Downtown Airport
Last week, a neighbor knocked on my door to ask for my signature on a petition to save the trees marked for removal by the Wausau Downtown Airport. A bit of a tree-hugger myself, I can sympathize with those in my southeast side neighborhood who have made it their mission to preserve the beauty and shade provided by these lovely trees.
There’s just one problem, though. The trees are already dead.
The vast majority of the trees slated for removal, now draped with ribbons and signs to “save this tree” are either hollow inside or diseased and decaying enough that they will be dead within three years. In fact, upon further investigation, it appears that these trees would have been cut down by North Central Health Care regardless of the FAA mandate – and they were only too happy to pass the task on to someone else.
Unfortunately, the airport has been left twisting in the wind, and is now under serious fire from neighborhood nature lovers. Some have gone so far as to question whether the airport is truly necessary, and have begun a petition to close it – a move that by all accounts would be disastrous for our local economy.
A handful of attendees at last week’s informational meeting claimed that the airport costs taxpayers far too much money to justify it’s existence. The city reports the actual burden on taxpayers amounts to a mere $1.28 for the owner of a $100,000 home - less than $2 a year for most Wausau residents. As it turns out, the return on that investment is phenomenal. Though the airport alone does not generate tax revenue, the hangars within the airport certainly do. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. According to recent figures, airport business contributes roughly $1.2 million to the local economy each year.
Wausau’s municipal airport is not only a relevant and necessary component to our community’s economic health; they have become a good community partner in many ways. The presence of the airport carries a great deal of weight with companies who wish to do business here. Aspirus uses the airport for medical helicopters, flying the injured to our hospitals. Planes carrying lifesaving organ donations arrive and depart regularly with their precious cargo as well.
And then, of course, there’s the fun stuff: the airport hosts a variety of community events each year, including the wildly popular Balloon Rally, an event attended by thousands. Every summer, our children are enriched by their incredible flight camp programs and Young Eagles flights. These are just a few examples of the wonderful opportunities presented by having a community airport.
It’s time to let go of the hostility and focus on coming up with solutions for the future, including the planting of new, healthy trees that won’t be a hazard – not only to the pilots who use the airport, but also to the Health Care Center clients and employees. Let’s remember, too, that airport management didn’t come up with the idea to cut down these trees on their own – they’re only complying with FAA regulations.
The Wausau Downtown Airport was established in the 1920’s. Surely the sound of planes and helicopters overhead cannot be a surprise to neighborhood residents. Rid our community of the municipal airport? Unthinkable – unless you are prepared to face the economic consequences, which by all accounts would be dire. Perhaps instead, when you hear the next helicopter overhead, think of another life saved – one more precious than the lives of a few dying trees.
Tom Neal said:
Thanks Dee Dee …
I’m chagrined that this side of the tree debate hadn’t crossed my path prior to this. I can’t say if you’ve done a tree-by-tree audit and determined conclusively that the spray-painted and be-ribboned candidates for cutting are all, as you say, diseased and dying. I don’t think there are many folks out there who are opposed to responsible stewardship and management of our arboreal bounty. Trees, like people, have life spans. I hope that we can learn more about the verifiable health of the grove out there. To me, a big open field with a big, lonely tree in the middle of it is vastly preferable to a big open field alone, or a field with a handful of spindly, little sprouts tied to sticks. We should do what we can to keep big trees in the picture, and plan for the future at the same time. Stewardship means taking care of today and tomorrow.
November 6th, 2007 at 10:07 am #
DeeDee Meyer said:
Thanks for the comment. Just to clarify, the Marathon County Parks Department has performed the independent testing. Those trees were chosen for removal largely because of their overall health.
November 6th, 2007 at 10:14 am #
Tom Neal said:
Thanks for the added info, Dee Dee. I zeroed in on the words “chosen for removal largely because of … health” and that sounds a little worrisome. If health is the issue, then the trees deemed for removal should be those doomed anyway due to disease or incurable injury. But, is there a little bit of the old, cold pragmatism (i.e. “well, as long as we’re out here, why not clean ‘em all out so we don’t have to come back in seven years”)? A more caring, selective approach maybe? Again, this is only my conjecture; I have no idea what those closely involved are thinking or what they’re up against. Thanks again, and if you learn more I hope you’ll let us know.
November 6th, 2007 at 10:41 am #
Dino Corvino said:
As officially an outdoor cub scout, how can you tell a tree, any tree, is dead?
November 6th, 2007 at 11:11 am #
Tom Neal said:
Dino … it smells after awhile?
November 6th, 2007 at 11:21 am #
DeeDee Meyer said:
I’m sure you could get an answer from the parks department, but tree testing is something done annually all over the city to determine which trees on boulevards need to be removed for safety reasons. I know there are several testing methods including core sampling. I’m sure one phone call could answer your questions!
November 6th, 2007 at 11:21 am #
Dino Corvino said:
I was just wondering if you could like tell by looking.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:32 am #
Tom Neal said:
Dino … one good tipoff is if they have X’s where their eyeballs are supposed to be.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:37 am #
Dino Corvino said:
Ahh!
Thanks.
Like a overturned bird, or in spy versus spy?
November 6th, 2007 at 11:45 am #
erik said:
As someone that’s covered this story, I must say this is a great article and nice to see on Citizen Wausau. The fact checking about the dead trees lines up exactly with what Mikel and I found as well.
Nice job, DeeDee.
November 6th, 2007 at 2:25 pm #
erik said:
P.S. Unless I am remembering entirely incorrectly the airport is planning on planting new trees to replace the old ones as well. Meaning that dead trees are being removed and new ones are still being planted in their stead. If anything, the average tree hugger should welcome this news.
November 6th, 2007 at 4:47 pm #
tommichlig said:
Just to clarify, are all of the marked trees dead or diseased, or just a large portion of them? The HCC loop is part of my walk route, so I’ve been by them several times in the last month. It appears that the areas that are being cut are being completely cut, with none left standing. Are they taking out any healthy ones as well, or are they all diseased/dead? If healthy, it would be nice to see some mature ones remain, through selective cutting (if possible).
November 6th, 2007 at 7:26 pm #
Jim Rosenberg said:
To answer tommichlig, there is share of the trees that have issues and my understanding is that it’s in the area of around 20 percent of the total number marked. I like the article and I think it is a great contribution to the discussion. There is ample room for reasonable compromise on this issue, for sure.
November 6th, 2007 at 9:34 pm #
visualizeit said:
Any idea as to why the trees are dying? Disease? What kinds of trees are dying? Mostly oaks? (oak wilt)?
Or is there an environmental problem? (too much pavement around the trees, disturbed soil, or something more sinister)?
November 6th, 2007 at 11:33 pm #
Tom Neal said:
There’s quite a swing from “vast majority” to “around 20 percent” when we’re trying to determine the number of sick trees. This info shouldn’t be so hazy on such a public issue. No doubt, someone will suggest, “Tom, just call the parks department and ask them,” but I expect I’d not get a definitive answer. But, Jim, is your 20% figure from them? And Eric, you mentioned facts you and Mikel were able to find … does that mean you’ve also heard the “vast majority” or the “20 percent” number, or something else? Factual context is key and everyone interested would benefit from definitive info. On the other hand, is the disease issue a moot point? The whole story started with the plan to remove all those trees, not due to disease, but due to FAA dictate and to-the-letter adherence. Is the disease report (rumor?) some sort of misinformation/misdirection campaign to take the heat off the airport? Do I think this is the case? Not necessarily, but isn’t it obvious that people will start thinking that way when they only get spotty and conflicting reports.
November 7th, 2007 at 7:49 am #
Dino Corvino said:
Seriously, I know nothing about trees.
November 7th, 2007 at 10:20 am #
Tom Neal said:
Dino … you’re such a nut.
November 7th, 2007 at 10:31 am #
tommichlig said:
Something stinks, here. Because I see them nearly every day, and it was quite green and leafy around there all summer.
Why was there no mention of the diseased/dead trees when the issue was first brought up? And furthermore, around 20% is clearly not a vast majority. But they are all marked for death, regardless.
If the issue issue doesn’t have anything to do with the health of the trees, don’t distract from the real issue by saying that it is. If our hands are tied by FAA mandate, there’s not much we can do. If not, 8 in every 10 are healthy, so why obliterate them, too?
Actual facts, please :)
November 7th, 2007 at 11:59 am #
DeeDee Meyer said:
The number I was told was that in the neighborhood of 20% of the trees are HEALTHY, and 80% are diseased. As far as the foliage - by the time a tree “appears” to be dead it has been dying for a long time. Trees can look healthy for years when they are not.
But you do bring up a valid point here - our hands ARE tied by the FAA mandate. The point is moot. The airport can cut those trees without ANY input from us - but they have chosen to try to answer residents concerns and offer a compromise to save the beauty of the area - something they absolutely do NOT have to do - and the county has already signed off on the matter. The actual fact? It’s about safety and following regulations, period - but answering neighborhood concerns is the right thing to do as well.
November 7th, 2007 at 1:57 pm #
Tom Neal said:
If 20% of the trees are healthy, I’d hope that those 20% be spared. As far as compromises go, that seems fair and reasonable. Having 20 stately trees to stand watch over the new plantlings seems almost parental and very “circle of life.”
November 7th, 2007 at 2:38 pm #
tommichlig said:
Back to my original question: any chance the airport’s compromise may nclude selective cutting of just the dead and nearly dead ones? (oh, that poor airport, left twisting in the wind… ;)
November 7th, 2007 at 2:47 pm #
tommichlig said:
Sorry, Tom N., you beat me to the post…
November 7th, 2007 at 2:47 pm #
tommichlig said:
And sorry, DeeDee, for the sarcasm. Sometimes it just seeps out of me. I do appreciate the knowledge.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:39 pm #
Tom Neal said:
Think: WWWGD? (What would Woodie Guthrie do?)
November 8th, 2007 at 8:25 am #
Tom Neal said:
(sung to the tune of … you know)
This land is your land
This land ain’t my land
Cut down the trees and
Turned it into a flatland
From the fenced-off river
To the parking meters
This land ain’t made for you and me
As I was walking
By the airport flyway
I saw my park had
Turned into a highway
I saw wood chippers
Chewing up the timber
This land ain’t made for you and me
yee-haw!
I am very sorry about that … I don’t know what came over me.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:43 am #
tommichlig said:
Tom, how about Country Joe and the Fish’s “Fixin’ to Die Rag”? You could do a rendition from the standpoint of the trees :)
November 8th, 2007 at 9:24 am #
Tom Neal said:
Well, come on all you lumber men
Uncle Sam needs your help again
We got ourselves in an air traffic jam
With a trouble-making maple tree stand
So put down your books and pick up an axe
We’re gonna take a whole lotta whacks
And it’s one-two-three, what’re they crying for?
Don’t matter what the tree huggers say
We’re gonna clear-cut anyway
And it’s five-six-seven, break out the splitting maul
Well, it’s firewood for one and all
Whoopee, they’re all gonna fall!
November 8th, 2007 at 9:38 am #
tommichlig said:
Poetry.
I’m picturing the lyrics and bouncing ball from the Woodstock footage..
November 8th, 2007 at 11:09 am #
Tom Neal said:
An anonymous source, “deep oak” has informed us that the city forester reports that only about 20% of the trees marked for removal near the airport are in poor condition, with the remainder in good health. Poor condition is not the same as being dead … thank goodness for me! So, the 20%/80% thing appears to have been heard or related backward inadvertently. Which, of course, brings us back to the question of true relevance of FAA concerns about visibility and tree-induced turbulence. I’ve always thought a stand of trees was a good wind break, but conceivably they can deflect wind upward … but wouldn’t the bare, unprotected walls of the adjacent building provide an even more effective wind-deflecting surface, and thus a greater hazard? Or am I not getting this turbulence thing right?
November 12th, 2007 at 1:48 pm #