Homeowners sue their city for view of Missouri River

WASHINGTON, Mo. -- Thirty-five homeowners are suing their city for the right to cut down trees that threaten to block their view of the Missouri River.

The homeowners are upset because the city of Washington, Mo., won't let them cut trees along a strip of land between the homes and the waters of Big Muddy -- a strip of land that the city claims to own. The homeowners say they have long been allowed to trim the trees for a better view.

"The view is the whole reason I'm living here," said Roy Stewart, who sawed down several trees behind his house last year, costing him a court summons for destruction of city property.

He's a plaintiff in the lawsuit, filed July 12. The suit challenges the city's claim to the land, arguing that the law gives true title to the homeowner whose property abuts it. The lawsuit asks the court to confer clear title to the homeowners and order the city to withdraw so they can cut their trees in peace.

The city, 40 miles west of St. Louis, claims to own the Missouri River shoreland at its doorstep, a strip of about 75 acres created by river deposits and course changes.

But the plaintiffs, all of whom live along the river's southern bluffs, have been topping and removing trees along the river "for at least 25 years," according to Herbert Dill, one of the plaintiffs.

"We want to preserve our view," he said. "We pay higher taxes on our lots because of the river view."

Meanwhile, opponents of the tree-cutting say the forest along the rivers is being wrongly destroyed by private interests -- including many individual homeowners who just want a clear view from their own land.

Mike Smith, who turned in Stewart to authorities last year, said his neighbor had cut down 49 trees more than 6 inches in diameter.

"The bottomland forest all up and down the rivers is being eliminated. We have a good example of it within the city limits, and we're allowing it to be destroyed," Smith said.

Sides have sparred before

Both sides of the issue have sparred several times in the past, including last winter, as the city prepared to open a riverfront trail. Ultimately, the city council banned tree removal until the parks department could develop a policy for care of the riverfront.

Stewart said he didn't know about the ban when he took his chain saw to the thicket below his house, as his father had done before him.

"My neighbor called the police. He probably was jealous because he lives on the street behind me and doesn't have a view," Stewart said.

Both sides sound ready to avoid a prolonged legal battle if possible.