The condemned elms and maples on death row (also known as South Bernard Street) won a stay of execution last week, but that could come to an end today when the judge who granted it is expected to make a final decision.

No matter what Superior Court Judge Harold D. Clarke III decides this morning in the shade tree showdown that has occupied the Cliff-Cannon Neighborhood all year, it’s unlikely that the parties to the matter will walk away smiling. Neighborhoods are passionate about their trees. Engineers feel the same about their designs.

There’s a lesson here about the need for citizen-involvement processes that are patient and inclusive — and that start early enough to allow public input before decisions have jelled.

Already, the rehabilitation of Bernard between 14th and 29th avenues has been delayed, and city officials know that finishing before fall will minimize safety concerns involving schoolchildren along the route.

Many residents of the established, middle-class neighborhood contend City Hall isn’t very concerned about preserving neighborhood character. So the residents sued, alleging the city hasn’t followed its own comprehensive plan.

The trees aren’t really the issue, but they are a symbol of a larger concern: Does the city honor its own policies, and does it welcome citizen involvement?

The work on Bernard is part of a 10-year plan that uses voter-approved bond receipts. City officials promised voters that the upgraded streets would be built to higher standards. They would have deeper, more stable road beds, adding durability.

Some two dozen trees that line Bernard in the project corridor have been identified for removal, either because they are diseased now or the excavation work would ruin their root structures. Neighborhood activists note that the city’s comprehensive plan emphasizes pedestrian safety and convenience as well as trees. They expected rehabilitation of Bernard would reflect those priorities — the trees would stay, the street would be narrower, the traffic calmed.

Instead, the city plans to retain the 40-foot width, leaving no room for the trees. When all is done, under current plans, the street won’t be different than it has been for years, just better, at least from an engineer’s perspective.

Many of the points the neighbors have raised are arguable. Do roadside trees really cause motorists to slow down as they contend? Might the trees actually endanger pedestrians, especially children, by impairing visibility? If traffic counts on Bernard have been stable for a quarter of a century, is it reasonable to fear the city will someday convert the two-lane street to four-lane?

The city has many more miles of street work to complete. Cliff-Cannon activists say the design on Bernard establishes a precedent that threatens other tree-lined routes. The city needs to set a different kind of precedent — one of truly listening to neighborhoods, accommodating their concerns as much as possible and leaving citizens feeling they’ve been respected.