First things first: I have seen the tree, Toronto’s mightiest red oak, up in North York, wide and tall enough to impress upon you its 350-year history. I have stood in its shade and marvelled at it.

I am not much of a tree-hugger, but I think it is beautiful. It inspires both awe at its size and longevity and reflection on the history it has witnessed and survived. It is worthy of protection, and of celebration. I think it may be worthy of its own parkette — of the city buying the property it sits on and making it open to the public, as has been discussed for at least the past three years.

That said, the little play by the owner of the property and the real estate agent representing him that has brought the tree into the news this week stinks. On Tuesday, the Star reported that agent Waleed Khaled Elsayed was giving an ultimatum or sorts to the city: Pay up or the tree gets it. If the city would not buy the property at a price Elsayed was going to name (reportedly $750,000 plus an additional 10 per cent or so in apparent “lost opportunity”), the tree would be cut down. “My feeling is nobody wants to save it,” he told my colleague Samantha Beattie. “And why should the seller suffer? They’re the one paying the bill.”

Read more:

Will city step in to save what could be Toronto’s oldest tree?

Mayor Tory wants ‘crowdfunding’ to help protect historic Toronto oak

Editorial | Toronto city hall should save majestic red oak tree

Fair question. The start of the answer would be that the heritage tree, in all of its glory and with all the complications it brings, was right there in the same spot when the current owner bought the place for $520,000 in 2015. The costs and responsibilities custody of the tree carries with it were as obvious then as they are now. Any discount in the sales value of the house caused by the tree was also built in as a discount in the market value when the house was last purchased three years ago.

Is the owner responsible for the tree? Hell yes. And because of its heritage protection status and the city’s tree protection bylaws, the owner could face fines of up to $200,000 if the tree is injured or removed without the city’s permission. And because it’s a heritage tree, permission would require a vote of the full city council. It will be hard to argue later that any harm to the tree was accidental or natural after having delivered a very public threat to remove it.

Furthermore, the city might well have bought the property already — city council passed a motion in 2015 to attempt to solicit private donations for the purpose of buying the property and turning it into a park — but according to a city spokesperson, the city has made “multiple attempts” to contact the homeowner to find out the asking price, but has received no response.

So Mayor John Tory’s initial public response to not panic makes sense. “I don’t want people to succumb to a scare message that says the tree is going to be sawed down in the middle of the night,” Tory said Wednesday.

In any event, the homeowner may be rethinking this strategy. After the initial conversation with the Star, the agent told Beattie the homeowner did not want him discussing it in the press for the time being, and he later told CBC they had cancelled a planned meeting with the neighbours and were offering no further comment because they were “taking a step back.”

Now that the homeowner has publicly named a price where negotiations might begin — albeit in an unnecessarily threatening way — re-starting the existing plan to raise funds may be a fine place to start. I am a little wary of using crowdfunding support as a way to determine city priorities, as Tory further suggested this plan might do. But since the city already has a motion on the books to do that, they might as well go ahead. A few prominent and affluent families have been connected to the property; there might be more generous support than in many cases is available.

If that falls short, I think it would be worth buying the property anyway, as a heritage parkette that could be an interesting point of interest for tourists and residents: the giant mighty oak, perhaps the oldest tree in Toronto.

If it turns out the homeowner doesn’t want to negotiate in good faith, the city does have the power of expropriation available to force the issue. Threats, after all, can go both ways.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

And none of those threats change the majesty and beauty of the tree. As I said, seeing it in person is awe-inspiring. That’s why I hope more Torontonians — generations more — will get the chance. All bluster aside, it’s a civic treasure. It should be civic property.

With files from Samantha Beattie.