As the person primarily responsible for the development application for the property on Fidalgo Street, upon which the oak tree which has sparked so much pubic discussion is located, I have been following with interest the exchange between interested groups and persons.

I would usually remain silent and let the public process run its course. However, since my motives and avaricious nature as a developer have been brought up in front of the public as facts, I thought it prudent to try to constructively address a few of the issues which relate to these references to my personal character. The public process which rests on acts and municipal codes will take care of itself, but I think it only fair to interject my two bits worth on my own behalf.

I have been in and around Oak Harbor for most of my adult life, and most of my lifelong best friends happen to be native residents of Oak Harbor. I have always been attracted to the unique social atmosphere as well as the incomparably beautiful physical setting of Oak Harbor, and Whidbey Island as a whole.

When I decided to attempt to build our mixed-use condominium on the site under discussion, on advice of city planning, we obtained a program prepared by a professional arborist who is intimately familiar with the Garry oaks. I have no wish to rush in and build a condo project and then disappear, having left behind a thoughtlessly planned and carelessly built residence for the community to endure for eternity. Rather, I intend to build a beautiful and well-planned project which is a credit to one of my favorite cities, and which neighborhood residents will be proud of, with the signature trees and namesake of the community as the center point of the design.

In order to achieve this goal, though, we need to bring the tree into scale with the surroundings. This program provides for the long term life and care of the tree, as well as bringing its canopy back into at least the boundary of the lot upon which it is centered. Our plan incorporates the tree into our project as a valuable and prominent asset, and guarantees its survival and professional care as part of an integrated landscape plan which will be supported by the condo owners’ association fees.

Lastly, I would like to offer an idea for consideration, which we have encountered in other cities with significant tree ordinances. That idea centers around mitigation allowances that are available to developers in situations like this. These allowances provide for planting new trees either on areas of the subject property or on appropriate public parks, paths, school yards or a host of other places which the community deems appropriate.

The long term view associated with these allowances incorporates the planning for the future that seems to be part of the many objections to pruning this particular tree. In the 35 years that I have been coming to Oak Harbor, Garry oaks that were planted as acorns are now 30 to 40 feet tall and over a foot through the trunks. So if there was a program that allowed for mitigation, trees with as large a caliper as possible to locate could be planted, and result in large and spectacular additions to the public spaces in the city in a reasonable amount of time.

It seems that a constructive solution, rather than destructive finger-pointing, is the way to provide for a vital present and a well planned and unique future in a city which has as much potential as does Oak Harbor. We would be most anxious to work constructively with members of the community and city planning toward a solution which benefits all groups, rather than having to divide into an “us or them” solution which succeeds only in dividing the community, rather than working to incorporate the diversity so inherent to vital and flourishing communities.

Allen Mathews lives in Wenatchee.