I agree with all of the above. The city should absolutely go after the driver's insurance company to pay for the tree. I hope we have the driver's details.

I bet the legal costs in going after the insurance companies dwarf the cost of the trees.

That street could some some good-sized speed-bumps though; drivers treat it as an extension of the freeway.

I agree on all of the above. extension of the freeway especially- speed monitors? speed limit signs?

Additionally, can the city of Oakland ask the Farmer's Market to direct traffic on Saturdays when traffic/congestion is completely out of control? I realize this is a different issue but if Traffic Engineering can address that issue perhaps they can come up with other creative resolutions for the speed issue.

Absolutely agree with all the above.

If the driver is insured, we can at least file a claim with the driver's insurance company just like an individual would do after any accident where property damage is done. If he had hit my front gate, I'd file a claim with his insurance company.

Eileen. In my original complaint, I said "file suit" and, as you suggest, the proper wording should be file a claim which could be handled by a clerk in Public Works or the City Administrators office. If the case did go to trial, the city would so for damages plus costs.

I knew what you meant, Ken. It's a very good idea, too.

Agree with everything above. I've been asking for additional pedestrian protections at these intersections for two years via emails to Pat Kernighan's office Nd other city administrators. The easy solution is to add a push button pedestrian traffic signal that activates lights on the ground.

When my elderly relative knocked over a big palm tree in Santa Barbara, his ins. company paid right up and a new tree was planted. It was a few thousand dollars, not a big deal and did not require intense litigation.

I prefer that the South American Queen Palm be replaced with a native California tree.

In any case, something should go in its place.

A small tree is cheaper than a large tree and will become more established in time, if it survives future collisions.

Kevin,

Although I'm a big believer in planting California Natives -- not in this case. The replacement tree should match the trees adjacent to it in the median and across the street in Splash Pad Park. In addition, it's the perfect choice for a narrow median on a heavily traveled street with a narrow trunk and a canopy high above traffic. A small tree in this instance would be especially problematic as it would need to be heavily pruned on a regular basis -- which the city is not currently equipped to do.

That said, I do appreciate you keeping this issue alive. I've yet to get a response from Public Works on whether or not they've attempted to collect damages from the driver's insurance.

Ken,

I would rather have an imperfect :) non-native than no tree at all.

Have you tried calling PWA to find out who is responsible for this ticket?

this system leave us with no idea where in the process an issue is....and the expectation that eventually something will happen. Apparently that is a false hope.

Something that should also be considered is to install cement bollards or sturdy fencing around these vulnerable trees:
http://www.idealshield.com/blog/tag/cement-bollard/

They would better protect the trees from offending, errant cars.

Looks like we have some strong feelings on this issue already - I know that auto insurance companies will go after payment of items like public fencing and telephone poles destroyed in crashes - why not a tree? How about more likely ticketing of speeders this this is a repeat problem? There also needs to be a barrier (preferably an attractive one) in the area - SplashPad is already quite barren on the street side.

Can we use this forum to take action? PW is obviously never going to address this on SCF. Let's use our talents to determine the problem and then find a solution.

What about asking the City Attorney's office if the person's insurance compnay was billed for this? They have been making cases against illegal dumpers, why not pursue this?

I heard several months ago that Public Works was going to replace a couple of the palms and they did, in fact, go out and paint the curb or put in flags.

Unfortunately, my impression is that this would be done with public funds - i.e., taxpayers are footing the bill.

I do think that contacting the City Attorney would be appropriate but I'd also suggest the City Auditor's office. If it's only one or two people who are complaining, we won't get anywhere. Is it feasible to put together a petition or group letter followed by a My Word column in the Tribune? Between SeeClickFix and Facebook, we might be able to shake things up a bit.

P.S. Matt and Eileen, thanks for keeping this issue active.

Was this issue ever resolved, i.e. by going after the vehicle owner/his or her insurance, etc.?

Is anything ever going to be done about this? Or if there is a status, please enlighten us.

Several months ago, a car crashed into three trees on the perimeter of my property, knocking one over and heavily damaging the other two. I contacted the driver's insurance company and made a claim. They required 2-3 estimates, and then promptly paid about $2500 for removing the trees and planting two nice size oak trees. Like any auto accident, it was a bit of a hassle, but well worth the energy.

Carly B. mentioned speed monitors - I'm assuming she meant those mounted solar-powered radar displays? If this is the case, then I must say...they don't work. About 60% of the drivers use them for what they are, but the rest seem to think this is a high score they need to beat. I've seen it all too often in other neighborhoods. "What? Only 38? I can do better than that! *VROOOM!!!*"

And I will agree that this intersection needs some serious work to curb the lead-footed types. It's been horrible now for at least the 6 years since I've been here.

The architect for a mixed use development on the Kwik Way site will be sharing their plans at a public meeting on Monday, July 18 at Barnett Hall adjacent to Lakeshore Avenue Baptist Church. Maybe, we can leverage discussion around this project to include improvements that will slow down traffic on Lake Park.

I'm all for restoring the site and NOT letting our city/community sink deeper and deeper into indifference.
However, I thought the idea of "fixing" the problem of speeding crashes by posting a 'slow/25 mph' sign was hilarious. The point of being a speeder, or course, it to IGNORE the posted speed limits, right?

I totally support the overall feeling of going after the drivers involved to get funds to replace the tress...perhaps not with palms, but with some tree. Yes, we need some traffic calming installed.

Replace the trees!

Several years after I filed the original complaint, another queen palm was demolished along with a curbside street light, parking pay station and one of the street lights in Splash Pad Park. Again, the city got stuck with the bill and the additional palm wasn't replaced.

Have there been any developments to this story?

DieSal, I didn't re-read the entire thread but to date, six of the nine palms have been destroyed due to vehicle accidents. None have been replaced and I doubt that the City has ever recovered damages.