Three old, dangerous trees. One quarelling council that can't agree what to do about them.

Six months after officials were warned about the safety risk posed by three massive 130-year-old trees on a Harrison Hot Springs main street, the trees continue to deteriorate—in part because the village’s dysfunctional council can’t agree whether to try to save them or to chop them down.

The fate of the three red oaks are the latest evidence of how the interpersonal battles roiling the small village’s government have real-world consequences for the every-day upkeep of city property and streets.

The trees

Located just one block south of Harrison’s main waterfront drag, Lillooet Avenue is one of the village’s main roads. Just west of the Highway 11 intersection, four massive trees sit on city land opposite a line of shops and the Harrison Lake Hotel. They dominate the streetscape and may be the village core’s oldest and tallest trees.

But they have seen better days. After a large limb fell from one of the trees last year, the village commissioned an arborist to examine the issue. Soon after that report was delivered last July, council decided to chop the trees down in a closed-doors session—but apparently without seeing the arborist’s 13-page report.

Understanding what has taken place since requires a basic understanding of the state of Harrison Hot Springs’ politics.

A Harrison politics refresher

In 2022, Harrison’s voters elected political newcomer Ed Wood as mayor in a three-way battle between himself, Coun. Samantha Piper, and former mayor John Allen. The previous mayor, Leo Facio, had decided to instead run for council, leaving Piper the obvious choice of those who were content with how the village was being run. However, she earned only one-third of the votes. Wood was elected with 43.5% of the votes, with Allen collecting 22% of the ballots.

Voters had opted for change.

The council race, meanwhile, involved only five candidates vying for four seats. In that group, Facio finished fourth, getting the votes of just 47% of electors. Coun. John Buckley, by contrast, was chosen by 82% of those who cast a ballot.

Almost immediately Wood clashed not just with Facio, but with his entire council. Then the village’s most-senior bureaucrats left, leaving the municipality shorthanded to actually handle the day-to-day job of running a village. And the contentious meetings made news not just locally, but across the province.

In June, Buckley announced that he had had enough and was resigning, citing the turmoil and Wood’s leadership. And in September, Harrison held a by-election in which voters elected Allen, the candidate most vocally supportive of Wood. Allen beat four other candidates but only took 35% of the vote, delivering an uncertain message about the public’s appraisal of Wood’s leadership. But that mattered less than the fact that Allen would provide a measure of vocal—and voting—support for Wood at fractious council meetings.

The red oak dilemma has shown how Allen’s election has altered some of the dynamics—but not enough to actually give Wood the ability to win major council votes.

Chop ‘em down?

Back to those trees.

In July, the village received that arborist’s report on the Lillooet Avenue trees. The in camera meeting followed sometime thereafter. Because the meeting was behind closed doors, there’s no record of the discussion or when exactly it took place.

Whatever the case, in October, a month after his election, Allen asked to have council instruct village staff to hold off on cutting down the trees until council could view the arborist’s report. Allen said the previous decision had been improperly made in camera. (Wood would later say the meeting had been held in camera because of concerns about potential legal liability linked to the trees.)

Allen’s motion failed, with the votes of Couns. Michie Vidal, Leo Facio, and Allan Jackson seemingly having sealed the trees’ fate.

But the trees didn’t immediately come down, leaving time for more politicking.

Three weeks later, Wood asked for a revote. Having seen the arborist report, Wood said the trees were more than 150 years old and could evidently be brought “back to life” through better care and support.

Coun. Leo Facio didn’t interpret the report the same way. He said it suggested only one tree had a good chance of survival and that the others were doomed by a lack of aeration and human impacts on the trees.

“They’re 150 years old, they’ve had a wonderful life,” Facio said. But he said the risk that the trees could break and injure someone was too great.

But in a rare turn for a famously split council, Wood managed to convince one of his previous opponents. Jackson declared that he was prepared to delay the chopping.

Jackson noted that he had served on council in 2009, when the trees’ were perceived to be “on their last legs.” The trees were then topped, removing the highest and most-problematic branches.

“I’m quite prepared to delay this,” Jackson said. But, he warned, “those trees become dangerous and there will be a lot more problems if something comes down and somebody gets seriously hurt.

“They were on their last legs 10 years ago. Whether they survive or not, I’m not sure. I would love them to survive. I’m a tree-hugger. But I want to make sure everybody’s safe.”

The report

The future of three or four large and presently dangerous trees seems like something a normal council could agree upon. And yet here we are.

As hinted at above, the argument over the trees comes at least partly down to how one reads that arborist’s report delivered in July.

For Allen and Wood, the report shows that the trees can be saved with active management.

Facio believes the report, when paired with the recent branch failures, confirms the trees have reached the end of their natural lives. He also spoke of a previous arborist report to Harrison that retained trees near a school only to see one come down during heavy winds.

Neither interpretation is obviously wrong. But both lack the nuance contained within the actual report, which was provided to The Current by the village upon request.

You can read the report here.

The report declares three of the trees to be “in decline” and posing immediate risks to objects and people below. That’s due to invasive pruning and mechanical wounds on the trees’ lower trunks, along with the consequences of soil compaction and root asphyxiation due to limited soil and greenspace around their bases. The arborist inspected the site of branch failures on two trees. He found wounds with spongy bark that is consistent with rot pathogens.

In other words: the trees are in bad shape. But they also aren’t necessarily doomed.

The arborist suggested two options.

One plan would be to fully remove three trees and replace them with more resilient species. The fourth should be reviewed within the year.

Alternatively, the arborist suggests the village chop off about 25 feet of crown growth from the three deteriorating trees. The area around the base of the tree should also be dug out and filled with better, more aerated, soil. And an irrigation plan for the summer should be developed. Within a year, the health of all trees should be reviewed.

The arborist said either option would “remove the immediate risk of further branch failure to the various targets on the site.” But it also warned that “given the current state of the trees and their [approximate] age of 130 years, as well the effects of a second drastic crown reduction, that option 2 will not guarantee their long-term survival.”

In other words, trimming back the trees would likely make them safer in the short-term, but the arborist could not make any promises concerning their long-term prospects.

There are two more important red oak facts worth knowing, even if they weren’t mentioned in the report or by the politicians.

First, 130 years is not particularly old for red oaks. Their natural lifespan is often double that or more. But also: British Columbia is not a red oak’s natural location. They are native to eastern North America, not the Fraser Valley. The only oaks native to BC are Garry Oaks. So there’s not really any “natural lifespan” for a red oak existing in the Fraser Valley.

An offer council could refuse

Three weeks after they decided to put off cutting the trees down, in December council turned their collective minds to what to do next.

Most municipalities would either task an in-house arborist with proposing and executing a plan, or hire a private tree maintenance company to do the work. Harrison Hot Springs is not most municipalities.

The municipality doesn’t have a staff arborist, though it could have hired a contractor. But that didn’t happen. Instead, Allen made a formal written offer to council to adopt and care for the trees himself—through his company— for the next three years under the guidance of the company that put together the original arborist report. Allen said he would pay for the work himself. The only thing he would require was permission to place a “small sponsorship sign near each tree which will explain the project and hopefully encourage others to adopt trees in Harrison.”

Wood loved the suggestion. The municipality had recently adopted an urban forest management plan—although that same plan warned that the village lacked the resources to actually manage its urban forest. Wood said Allen’s proposal was a good start to address the problems raised in the plan. But Facio—Allen’s long-time sparring partner and political foe—was less impressed, saying the offer lacked a business plan.

That wasn’t surprising. But, crucially, Jackson also balked at handing the future of the trees over to Allen. He voted against accepting the offer, leaving the trees’ future cloudier than ever.

The mayor

Wood told The Current just before Christmas that he has ordered staff to hold off any action. (Though that would just reinforce council’s previous motion to not do anything.)

As it is, the stalemate over three dangerous trees is another example of how a lack of co-ordination and animosity between members has left the village with a government that often can’t seem to actually govern.

In that December interview, The Current suggested to Wood that, from the outside, simple things seem to be getting bogged down due to contrasting personalities or differing views about how to manage a place like Harrison.

Faced with that benign observation, Wood attacked his opponents.

“I was going to say it’s nasty, nasty, dirty politics at its worst,” he said

“Don’t you bear some responsibility for that?” this reporter asked.

“For the nasty politics? No I don’t believe it. My responsibility is to try to make us operate.”

“Have you seriously contemplated … what you could do to resolve these ongoing tensions?”

“That’s a whole other story on its own, Tyler.”

Tomorrow, we’ll publish our interview with Wood in which we ask why Harrison’s leaders can’t put aside bitter personal politics to govern their community. Make sure you are subscribed to The Current’s daily newsletter to get that story delivered directly to your email inbox.