Confused City Employees

A tree rooted in ground owned by the city of Seattle fell into 74 year old Joyce Johnson's yard. She figured that the city would come clean up the mess, however,

"The city explained that private property owners who live next to city property are, in many cases, responsible for the trees on that adjacent city property."

Futher,

"[Seattle Transportation Department spokeswoman Liz] Rankin explained that most of the old trees throughout the city were planted to satisfy the demands of a public that desired a community filled with green. Because citizens enjoy the benefits of those trees, it's the citizens' responsibility to help maintain them."

Isn't this (for lack of a better term at the moment) double-banging this poor woman? She is 'the city', isn't she? She pays taxes so that the City of Seattle can exist and people like Rankin have jobs.

One of my favorite parts from the article says,

"it's important to know [who is responsible for certain trees], because a permit is required to cut down or trim trees on city property or public easements."

Isn't that nice? You pay us to plant them, you have to pay us if you want to trim them or cut them down, and if they fall, you have to pay to clean them up. All while paying us to do...what, exactly?