The San Francisco Department of Public Works is trumpeting a solution for a 50 year-old bad decision that's resulted in thousands of dollars of property damage over the years. But here's the catch: it's up to San Francisco property owners to act on the solution, and it'll likely be up to the property owners to pay for it.

Back in the 1960s, city arborists decided to plant over a thousand ficus microcarpa nitida trees across San Francisco, apparently unaware that "the trees (are) a bad fit in urban environments because of their stems' tendencies to split from trunks, and because their root systems tend to tear up sidewalks," as the Chron noted in July.

The trees, which are known for "limb failure," have been falling apart on top of people, cars, buildings, and power lines ever since, as "all it takes a bit of dust or moisture to topple the trees." When that happens, the DPW has to come out and clean it up, a process that costs taxpayers between $395 to $1,776. SF is also on the hook for any damage the trees cause, like when, last month, one of the trees fell on a pedestrian.

Frustratingly, the DPW cleanup might be the only maintenance those trees have seen in years, as, according to DPW spokesperson Rachel Gordon, the agency tries to address issues with the trees "before they become major, but we just don't have the staff to inspect and prune proactively...Optimally, we should be inspecting our trees, such as the large ficus trees, every one to two years...We don't even hit the five-year mark, which we set as a goal. Now it's closer to every 12 years for trees."

Given this inability to maintain their own trees, it is perhaps unsurprising that yesterday the DPW issued a press release (that was picked up by the Chron, ABC7, and the Ex) basically saying that they're willing to allow the removal of some of the troublesome trees...but property owners should get ready to pay for it.

"Public Works Director Mohammed Nuru has signed a new order easing the removal of individual ficus street trees that pose a risk of failure," the release begins, saying that ficus trees that (among other factors — you can see all the necessary qualifications here) have "a history of limb failures" or "conflict with streetlights or power lines" can now be reported for removal.

It's not clear exactly how folks who see one of the troublesome trees lets the DPW know that they need to begin the removal process (SFist's call to the DPW was not returned at publication time), but the DPW says that this "order applies to both public and private ficus street trees located in San Francisco."

"As part of the formal permit review process," the DPW says in their release, "Public Works will dispatch a certified arborist to assess the tree. Trees recommended for removal will be posted with a notice to alert the public. Anyone who objects to the removal has 30 days to file a formal protest. That automatically triggers a public hearing before an administrative hearing officer who will determine the tree’s fate."

But here's the rub: out of San Francisco's 2,700 ficus trees, only 1,400 are maintained by the city. That's because "DPW does not have the resources to prune and maintain trees at a frequency recommended by tree care industry experts," they say, and, as of 2011, began "transferring" the responsibility to care for thousands of previously publicly maintained trees to property owners.

So, regarding the other 1,300 potentially limb-failing ficus in SF? The responsibility for removing those is on the property owners, but they still need the DPW's OK.

"Owners of privately maintained ficus street trees would have to apply for a tree-removal permit and pay the associated $339 administrative fee and the cost of removal," the DPW says. "In addition, any ficus tree that is removed would have to be replaced with a more suitable species of tree." Want to guess who has to pay for that? Here's a hint: not the DPW.

"I issued this order out of an abundance of caution because at the end of the day, protecting public safety is paramount," DPW Director Mohammed Nuru says in his department's statement.

But, apparently, that "abundance of caution" doesn't extend to regularly maintaining the trees, nor for taking responsibility for all the ficus planted by the city that are showing signs that they're ready to fall on a car, passerby, or power line.

If you want to avoid that, property owners, you'd better get ready to ask permission, and then to pay up.

Previously: San Francisco's Troublesome Ficus Trees Fall On Cars, Muni Lines, Pedestrian Thursday