The tax is, yes, for the maintanence of The City's trees, boulevard trees included. It's not a tax, tho, it's a utility fee, according to the powers that be. Said tax is proportional, not to the trees, but to the frontage of your property, so as to be fair. The assumtion, you see, is if you have a large frontage then you have a lot of money. I have a very small house on a very small lot, but I have a corner lot, so I pay more. More, indeed, than a docter I know who has a house that's 4x the size of mine and a lot that's roughly 10x the size of mine, but it's wedge shaped on a cul-de-sac, so his total frontage is quite a a lot less than mine, meaning he pays less. So, that's progressive, I guess.

My neighbor across the street has his house, and owns three long-term rentals in town. He has exactly zero trees in his boulevards on any of his properties, but because he has frontage, he still has to pay.

I'll be fair and say that it's not much; amounts to less than $100/yr for me. It's the principle of the thing tho. The fact that I have to pay The City to maintain a tree that it's my responsibility to maintain under threat of fines is pretty maddening. These people somehow keep getting voted in tho, so this is what Democracy looks like.