Comments on: Why was Atlanta arborist Tom Coffin fired?

By: 2dal

2dal — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:44:13 +0000

Janet L

I don’t know about your dealings with Tom Coffin. You definately do not know about the water oak that fell during a very violent storm and killed 3 of the Cunards. Tom had nothing to do with the permitting of that tree. The tree was located on church property. Tom lives down the steet from that tree and will tell you it was in horrible shape. The church never requested a permit to remove the tree.

And you know what? Mr. Cunard tragically lost his family and never lashed out at that tree or any other tree. I did not know him directly but I have friends in Vi-Hi that do. That tree fell during a very violent storm. No one knows what can happen during storms like that. Signs, utility poles and traffic lights can come down as well. Tom is human and like any human has faults. Don’t blame him for something he had nothing to do with. His job is not an easy one. The subject or regulating urban trees is a touchy one. I admit that I know Tom. He tough me much about trees. We didn’t alway agree and he is a headstrong person but he is also a fairly reasonable person as well.

Think about this. On days when the air quality in Atlanta reaches a certain unacceptable level the city has to pay fines. It’s also not good for you to breathe. Trees filter out that yucky stuff. When the heavy rains come it’s the trees that help to significanly reduce the runoff and control urban flooding. There are economic and sociological benefits as well. People have better mental health when around trees and greenspaces. If you haven’t already you should see the infrared satelite photos of the metro area. They are horrifing. Weather patterns have changed due to our changing the land. The people that are trying to protect the air, water, land and the trees that connect it all are protecting your livelyhood. It may seem like an incovience to rake leaves but come on. What are you going to do when you can’t breathe the air or your home’s been swept away by flood waters? These are the things to be conservative about. And that’s why Tom is so passionate about the trees. He cares about what kind of planet he is leaving for his children and grandchildren. And probably sticking up for something that 1) has no voice and 2) cannot move. That is the treehugger soapbox but think about it. It’s reality. It’s about more than just YOU.

By: Janet L

Janet L — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 04:42:30 +0000

I for one am very happy to know that Tom Coffin has been removed fromt he arborist division. He was unfair and no I am not a developer and never recieved a fine from him. But I had dealings with Tom over the years that he worked for the city. He lied, was sneaky and unreasonable. I believe that we need to save our trees but not at the cost of lives. Does anyone remember the terrible tragedy that occurred in Va Highlands a few years ago when Tom refused to allow a tree to be taken down claiming it was alive, if I remember correctly the tree fell and killed a family. He once told me that I could not take down a dying tree in my yard that was leaning on my neighbors house. I went to the Federal Government to override his authority. The tree was SO DEAD!

By: Harold

Harold — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 13:38:12 +0000

I own a private residence in Atlanta. I had the unfortunate opportunity to be a victim of Tom Coffins abuse of his position. A few days after spreading a truckload of composted dirt over my yard to establish a lawn, I was in my yard when Tom Coffin drove up my driveway. He got out of his truck as I walked up and, without introducing himself, screamed “get out of my way I’m here on official business!” After several attempts to get his name and him dodging around my yard refusing to speak to me; I called the police. After they arrived and spoke with him he nastily told me his name, position, and that I had to remove the thin layer of dirt or he was going to fine me $27,500 for disturbing my trees root zone! He wrote a ticket ordering me to remove the dirt and left. No conversation, no explanation.
I made an official complaint to the city of Atlanta as I’m sure many who have had contact with him have had to do. He’s painting a picture of himself as the Joan of Arc for the trees of Atlanta, but he was more like the Hitler of the same. I have 13 huge oak trees in my yard which I could have cut down, but I choose to keep. His manner and actions where volatile and unstable and I’m sure his superiors had just reason to terminate him.
When he returned to my house in 2 weeks to ensure that I had complied with his order(I had), he stated that the city arborists had full police power and did not have to speak or even state there name if they did not wish too?(delusional power trip?).
Even if his intentions are wonderful he had the worst people skills I’ve encountered and was ill suited for his position.

By: knoxvol

knoxvol — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 02:33:38 +0000

I feel like that if I don’ want a huge tree on my property risking my family’s life than I should be able to cut it down. It’s not that fun dragging the kids out of bed and into the basement during a bad storm in the middle of the night. If the tree benefits everyone in the city then give me a property tax credit for putting up with the risk and also the work of raking the leaves. I’ve seen too many people killed by trees in this city for them to tell me I have to put my kids life at risk. If the city wants trees they should use their money to buy property and plant trees on it. I question the constitutionality of the laws in the first place.

By: jeri breiner

jeri breiner — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 01:14:41 +0000

the firing of tom coffin is indicative of the disease existing in the bureau of building department which can not tolerate someone doing their job and trying to protect our community by enforcing the codes that we are supposed to abide by. it is a sad day for the city and everyone in buckhead (ok, not spec home builders and developers) hopes that this error will be corrected. thanks for continuing to make this public.

By: RW

RW — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:36:50 +0000

Oskar, I think your argument is being construed as being from a developer because you wrote: ‘no one in THIS industry wants to cut down trees’.
In fact, most developers do want to cut down trees anytime one is in the way of maximizing their profits.

By: cityzen

cityzen — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:20:58 +0000

There’s a simple fix that would make the hazard tree exception to the ordinance less of a loophole. Then Oskar’s complaint would be moot. (Of course often there is no really scientific way to predict a tree’s demise unless the darn thing is very dead.) Just forbid building in the area where the tree was removed for, say, 3 years. Then cases like a neighbor who took out mature trees on the hazard excuse and the same week got a permit to put a pool in the very spot would not occur. Decimating tree cover in this city should mean paying mightily. The approach was proposed during the last brouhaha. But since council does not actually care to protect trees it got nowhere.

By: E

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:30:04 +0000

Oskar, if what you say is true then wouldn’t there be a trail of decisions by him being overturned via appeals to the Tree Commission?

Or is the Tree Commission not really a reliable purveyor of decisions based on facts?

By: oskar

oskar — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:47:32 +0000

“rant.” My point was simply that on numerous occassions Tom enforced the ordinance inconsistenly and unfairly–that is, without regard to the facts pertaining to the condition of this or that tree. I’m guessing that his co-workers and superiors were ultimately aware of this.

By: oskar

oskar — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:44:22 +0000

For the record-I am not, and do not work for any developer or tree removal company. I do not, and will not have a tree taken down illegally, and have always followed the commission\\\’s protocol for appealing an arborist\\\’s decision. In some cases, the recompense fee is the only fair and equitable option. Further, I apologize that my earlier remarks appear to some as a \\