Decatur Proposed Tree Ordinance Would Protect 6+ Inch Diameter Trees and Strive for 55% Tree Canopy
Decatur Metro | January 6, 2014 | 6:31 pmOK, I haven’t had much time to go through this in much depth yet, but I wanted to get it up on the site so folks can begin to review. (You can also view the work session LIVE right now (6:36p) at this link)
Decatur’s Public Information Officer Casie Yoder has sent along the proposed tree ordinance summary, along with the presentation being given to the Decatur City Commission this evening and residential and commercial flow charts. Here are links to them all.
- Proposed Tree Ordinance Summary
- Tree Ordinance Presentation
- Residential Tree Ordinance Flow Chart
- Commercial Tree Ordinance Flow Chart
And for your convenience, here’s the “Summary of Draft Recommendations” from the first document above:
-
Sets a community-wide tree canopy cover goal of 55% to be achieved by 2039.
-
Relies on the city arborist to administer the tree ordinance and promote tree conservation and planting beyond the tree ordinance through information, education, and public tree maintenance programs (planting, pruning, other maintenance, and tree risk management).
-
Identifies a single class protected trees. Protected trees includes all public trees and all trees conserved or planted to meet requirements (regardless of size), and all trees 6 inches diameter at breast height (dnh) and greater. This protected tree class includes trees that were designated as significant, specimen and landmark in the current ordinance. simplifies the regulations and focuses simply on tree canopy cover.
-
Regulations set on any project that will disturb 20% or more of the tree protection zone of any protected tree.
-
Provides a clear definition of boundary trees and requires protection if the tree is being impacted by a project.
-
A separate set of administrative guidelines will be created to facilitate implementation.
-
A tree species list is included as an appendix.
-
The fee schedule, inspection fees and value of tree canopy used to calculate contributions to the tree bank have been removed from the ordinance. These fees and values will instead be included in the city’s planning and zoning fee schedule which is reviewed and updated annually
seems to me we’re asserting the collective will of a meaningful portion of our community: we want a well canopied city, and are willing to endure some relative hardship for developers in order to accomplish this. yes, all trees have a lifespan, and turnover is natural, but in the here and now, we have a nice mature canopy, and we’d like it to endure as long as possible.
meanwhile i have some diseased < 6" Japanese plum trees in my front yard that will soon meet their maker.
to those who oppose this heavy handed socialist manhandling of your arboreal freedom . . .
imma blame Obama.
But what if some of the residents “who work 3 part-time jobs” for “American minimum wage” want to remove a 6.5″ tree in their yard??
means test it? vouchers?
Since this ordinance will make individual property owners also pay into the tree bank like developers do, everyone should understand how significant this fee is. Currently large trees are in the $5K-$7K range if Ed Macie doesn’t think the tree is declining.
And that’s just to get the permit so you can pay someone $4-5K to take it down.
It seems a little shady to not have this fee schedule easily available to the public along with the proposed ordinances.
Kill your trees now if you ever want them gone before this mess passes. Just more and more government. I know lets all decide now what type of car you must have if you live in decatur or if you can eat fast food and not organic produce.
man, i sure hope the gov’t never tells me what kind of car i can own. i just hate mufflers, catalytic converters, turn signals, seatbelts, and airbags and i’ll be moving to canada if some bureaucrat in washington, atlanta, or decatur is going to force me to only buy a car that has them.
Of course it is a ridiculous statement, it was intended to be. I understand basic regulations are necessary. I agree with goals to preserve trees and have done so on my own property but that was my decision to make not the city’s, where is the line in the sand. When do we decide that basic property rights need to remain with the property owner and not in the political arena. Often people jump in with their ideals and passion for a cause and think little about the big picture. This is just a continuation of some of the national and regional issues with the governmental systems that are in place today. Basic frustration really for me and completely my opinion!
I have a feeling that most of these were standard features well before they found their way into government mandates. Sure enough, a bit of research this morning showed that turn signals were standard equipment on Buicks by the late 1930s, while federal regulations regarding turn signals came about in the late 1960s.
Of course the regulators have since moved to the truly important, such as requiring that all new cars have backup cameras. Because actually turning your head to back up is so last century.
The people who have inadvertently run over toddlers that were not tall enough to be seen by looking backwards or in mirrors would probably disagree about the importance of backup cameras. I’m shocked at how often those incidents show up in the news. Never mind the briefcases, bicycles, mailboxes, plants, etc. that are run over inadvertently. Yes, a lot of that is human error but human error is a fact of life for any activity that is done on a daily basis, repeatedly, e.g. driving. For certain kinds of errors, structural controls that do not require our error-prone human memory are the best way to reduce the frequency, cost, and often tragedy.
trees have been around since before this regulation will pass also. point is, there are many things that are mandated by the government for the common good. you can argue a tree canopy standard is going too far, but it’s not like it’s breaking new ground government regulation-wise. private property rights are great and all, but they are nowhere near absolute. there are thousands of ways the government already tells you what you can and can’t do on/to your property.
adding: i find it a bit odd that something like a tree ordinance to maintain a certain level of canopy gets so much push back, while the private property rights related to something like a developer wanting to put in a walmart, or a clifton ridge, also gets push back. maybe from a different crowd, i guess.
Nope, same crowd – people want it both ways. If they don’t like something you are doing on your property (i.e. building a wal-mart or cutting down a tree), they want to be able to stop you. However, if they want to do something on their land, they don’t wany any government interference.
Interesting on many levels.
There is no crisis here. The tree canopy has declined about 4 percentage points in the last 18 years according to data cited by the City.
The summary says that “Protected trees includes all public trees and all
trees conserved or planted to meet requirements (regardless of size).” This is not entirely clear but it seems to suggest that any tree is protected if the planter/conservator says it is, even if the tree is tiny and provides no contribution to the canopy.
This plan vests an awful lot of power in the city arborist. That said, the standards the arborist is to apply are pretty onerous and would seem to be rarely satisfied. That is, good luck taking down a tree for any reason short of the tree’s impending death.
“planted to meet requirements”
When you develop a property you’re required to submit a tree plan. You must meet a specified tree factor with either saving existing trees, planting new trees, or a combination of these.
The ‘planted to meet requirements’ trees are those planted by a builder/developer/renovator to meet the tree factor. These trees exist on every lot that has a new home.
As written, a new home owner has a lot full of protected trees.
This should NOT pass.
It is a significant imposition of the community on private property rights. Beyond what is in the summary above, it appears that it includes a new canopy requirement at the individual property level.
If you want to do a renovation that increases the impervious surface of a site by over 10%, the entire site will need to be brought into compliance with the 55% canopy coverage goal.
You want to have a garden to grow tomatoes? You better find a variety grows in the shade.
Wow is all I can say. From watching the streaming video, it looks like the commissioners have already decided to vote for whatever the report says and their biggest priority is hiring the new arborist ASAP. So much for public input.
I am wondering about the 55 percent canopy number. What is that based on? I am guessing this is an overall number for the city, but that is not really made clear in the report. Why 55? I understand the canopy has declined, but is this realistic? And could we ever get to 55 percent even if all homeowners comply since the commercial areas do not have to have the same coverage. The city seems ok with clear cutting properties if it is for higher density. What are they required to plant back, a future 10 percent or something like that? And then there’s the cemetery, ball fields, tennis courts and all the roads that are within our city. I wonder what the current canopy number is for just residential, excluding all the townhouses, condos, roads etc. Probably is already above 50.
Like bikeboy points out, what is the actual cost to plant one of those 2.5″ trees that give you 500 sf future coverage including all the inspections and equipment to dig the hole and move the huge tree around? I guess the ten or so 1″ trees that our family planted this past year would not count for anything but their current shadow on the GIS map. And if you want to clear out a few of those sweet gums so you can plant your veggie patch, it’s gonna cost ya!
This seems to me like a jobs program for the arborist at the expense of private residential property owners.
Yes, it’s true that a new homeowner would have a lot of protected trees. On the other hand, if those are planted by a developer to meet the requirements, and they are small than the 6 inch requirement, what would be the point of having them planted if they could be removed right away?
There would be no point, other than maybe the new homeowner would prefer trees in a different location.
I just want people to understand that this ordinance removes that freedom unless you go through a paid permit process, pay fees to a tree bank, and get someone who doesn’t live in your house to sign off on what and where you plant.
Big Government – Yay! Before any of us consider this ordinance, the Commissioners need to fill us in on the proposed permit costs. All the commission has to do is make the price of a permit so high that no one will pay it. The unintended consequence is that a bunch of us will hire that Alabama dude who poisoned the Toomer’s Corner tree to make sure the Arborist agrees the tree is diseased.
I am not sure I fully understand the recommended ordinance, I will try to explain what I think and ask if I have it right. I own a house in Decatur with some trees on the lot.
Scenario 1: I want to do some landscaping work and have a big (say 24″ diameter) tulip poplar in the middle of my backyard. I want to cut it down so I can put a nice vegetable garden and grow my own food. Can I? Under what circumstance? Does it cost anything?
Scenario 2: I have a huge Live Oak that is really old. It falls down in the next deluge of rain/wind. Do I have to get a permit from the city to have it removed? Do I have to pay the city for a permit even though it was completely out of my control?
Scenario 3: My neighbor and I share an enormous ‘Boundary Tree’. It falls down in the same storm that gets my live oak in Scenario 2. Fortunately for me, it falls in my neighbor’s yard. Is a permit required to clean it up? Does my neighbor get to pay because it falls on his yard?
#1: You might be able to do it if you get the City Arborist to sign off on it. And if you do, yes you’ll have to pay a significant fee into the tree bank. What concerns me is that fee schedule is not openly and readily available with the other tree ordinance documents under consideration.
#2: A tree company won’t remove it without getting a permit and you won’t get a permit until the arborist signs off on it. Yes you’ll have to pay someone to confirm your fallen Oak won’t re-right itself.
#3: There is probably existing case law that covers this scenario as to liability and responsibility that this ordinance won’t be able to supersede. But I don’t know.
I don’t understand this point: if during a renovation the impervious coverage is projected to increase by over 10%, then the entire property has to have 55% coverage. Is this even possible? What if I have a house with a small footprint and I want to add on back (easy to think how this could easily increase impervious by >10%), but my current canopy is only 20%. How do I get to 55%? That seems to be a lot of trees to plant.
Can someone explain to me what tree canopy has to do with impervious coverage and why they are linked?
Whatever side you are on it must be understood that this ordinance would drastically change basic tenants of private property rights. Boundary trees and their shared canopy between properties essentially become permanent easements. I am wondering if commercial property owners will want to be annexed into Decatur if they have their property diminished by over half. Also the new position of arborist will have more power than any other city official. I think everyone loves trees, but this is a pretty serious issue that is being crafted rather quickly during the holiday season – I would like to take the time to get it right.
“this ordinance would drastically change basic tenants of private property rights”
really? what are the basic tenants of property rights and which ones are being changed? you’ve never had the right to do whatever you pleased with your property, especially in a city. and if you consider cutting down a tree a basic tenant of property rights, there must be a million basic tenants of property rights.
TENET. The word you both mean to use is “tenet,” not “tenant.”
sorry, i just went along without thinking twice about it. irregardless, you knew what we were saying.
Oh, quit it. ;-d
and if it’s actually the case, i’m sure a simple city ordinance that so drastically infriges on private property rights can’t possibly hold up in court. a developer will sue on day 1 and we’ll never have to hear about it again.
What is not made clear is that in this proposal the tree canopy projects onto the ground – and grows with the tree. Take this scenerio: I plant a tree on the lot next to your house close to the boundary . Because the ground under the canopy is protected, I have essentially created a new easement on your property without your permission . Currently Ga law views the branches from my tree hanging over your property a ” nuisance ” – that is a big change.
I love trees, my property probably has more trees than most in the city – my point is that this is a BIG deal that needs to be handled carefully.
Also, if you are a developing a commercial property downtown, how is it feasible to have 55% lot coverage with trees? Isn’t that somewhat contrary to density?
Much of this relates to a central problem, that tree ordinances were originally designed to be applied to larger properties under development — to prevent clear cutting for subdivisions.
That allowed a developer to shift lots or roads around trees or replant on site and absorb those costs and challenges inside a large, costly development.
But when a applied to a single 7500 sf lot, there’s no such flexibility.
You can’t move your small addition to some other lot and build it next door where there’s no tree. You also can’t easily absorb a $8K tree recompense plus a $7k tree cut down fee inside a project that’s only $50-$75K. It makes sense only when the project is tearing down the small, older house and building new. Is that the point? Would we rather lose the 100-year-old, 1200 sf house so a developer can afford to take down a tree?
And, doesn’t this also compete directly with the fast-growing urban agriculture trend? How can anybody ever grow a reasonable vegetable garden if their lot has to be in the shade all the time.
tomatoes need 8-10 hours of sun.
Finally, I’d ask isn’t this all based on pseudo science? No one can truly tell you if a tree is in good health or not, how long it will survive or when or if it will ever fall. It’s all just guess work. In fact, multiple arborists will offer multiple different assessments on the same tree quite commonly.
When did arborists win this contract for permanent employment from local governments?
Three questions.
1. If I were to buy a lovely sunny lot because I like the way my bermuda grass grows and love having vegetables year round, would this require me to pay to bring my lot up to 55% coverage if I were to build a master bath or master closet, or even went to Home Depot and bought a $1500 pre-fab shed?
2. Lets say I own an older home with a huge oak in the back yard. It’s been shedding large limbs for years. Three years ago an arborist recommended we take it down. Even then it was estimated to be an $8K tree. So, this is no small project. Said tree might be within 8 feet of our house and 15 ft of a neighbors. Certainly, we could never add on to the rear of the lot without impacting the tree and the root zone, which would cover half the neighborhood. Does the recommendation from three years ago exempt us from all of this if we were ever to have $10K fall from the sky and choose to follow the recommendation?
3. Is this ordinance considering the possibility that everyone in Decatur is not a household of two high-earning professionals? What about folks of more modest means with limited budgets?
Could there not be some standard where no tree impact fee structure can be more than 5-10% of the project cost?
I also think people need to address where the 55% number came from. Atlanta already leads the nation in tree canopy at 36%, (with the national average at 27%), and Decatur is in the top of top of the metro area list at 45.1%.
Although I appreciate aiming high, more than doubling the national average probably comes at a fairly significant cost that hasn’t been fully laid out, or made apparent to most Decatur residents.
+1. I’d really like to understand why 55% is better than 47%. Seems arbitrary but I could be wrong. It almost seems (and I hope I’m wrong about this) that this is a reaction to tree removal conducted during renovations/ teardowns, and a policy is now being formulated in an attempt to halt or slow this action.
At while I’m raising issues, there isn’t any formal dispute resolution process addressed in either the summary, nor the flowcharts.
I personally have had the City Arborist render two completely divergent opinions about the same trees on the same lot within a 15 month span. I also know plenty of people who have had completely different opinions from different arborists about the same tree on their lot.
Since arboring is apparently just slightly more reliable than dowsing for water, it worries me that a single city arborist can veto other arborists opinions, without you having any ability to dispute or appeal their decision.
In terms of liability, this could cause a significant problem for a homeowner. If a tree falls on your neighbors house and you had _any_ arborist tell you that tree was danger, you’re going to be sued by the neighbors insurance company regardless of what the city arborist said. You might be able to escape liability because of this, but you’re still going to be drug through wreckage.
Re liability: I’ve thought about the same thing. Is the city going to indemnify me when the tree falls on a neighbor’s house because they forced me to keep trees in a scenario where I would otherwise remove them? Personally, I would record the arborist’s entire initial assessment on my phone, including voicing my concerns, and use it as proof that the arborist or city accepted the liability when I declined to accept it. Way too much power vested to one individual, especially when you’re talking opinions.
This is ridiculous. I love trees, and was proud of my then 3 yr old niece who said she wanted to be a tree when she grew up. However, this is a utopian dream that has huge financial impact on many in the city (and a very uneven impact at that). I don’t understand how the Commission can even consider this without the fee schedule being public well beforehand, and mulptiple scenarios as laid out above put into a FAQ for all to read and understand (including the Commissioners).
It seems a lot of these concerns might be addressed in the ordinance. Surely trees that fall naturally will not require further permitting to be removed. That should be spelled out.
Presumably, most commercial projects will meet these requirements by paying into the tree bank. It’s another cost of development and likely not that big as a percentage of these projects.
I am curious whether the task force considered if green roofs might be allowed to meet some portion of the requirements as they as similar effects in mitigating heat islands as do large trees.
The city web site says the wording of the ordinance is still undergoing review and will be released soon.
The CoD still doesn’t give you any credit for green roofs as far as impervious coverage is concerned, so it’s unlikely to treat green roofs any differently in this regard.
Nobody is ever going to spend the additional money needed to build with a green roof if the CoD continues to treat ground cover the same as asphalt shingles.
Does the new ordinance protect Bradford Pears, Box Elder and Mimosa? If it does, then I would consider it deeply flawed. They need to consider whether the tree species is invasive or otherwise undesirable. Hopefully the arborist will have discretion and common sense—but the ordinance should note certain species that are always OK to come down. I’d take down every Bradford Pear if I could. They should be illegal.
+10000
There are a lot of trash trees out there, can I remove a Water Oak or Pine tree that is over 6″ or will I have to wait for it to fall I my house? There are a lot of useless trees out there…
I like sun too much to support this ord.
If you don’t support this ordinance, you are going to have to come out to Commission meetings and lobby. If this is what results from the community meeting/public input so far, there are a lot of people who are not in support of such a costly ordinance that have not made their opinion known in the right channels.
I agree completely and will be at the commission meeting on Jan 21 to oppose this. Discussing or venting on a blog can be cathartic and potentially productive, but can we count on anyone else to show up to the meeting when it will really count?
In addition, here’s a link to the city commission’s email address; let them know your thoughts. I’m working on my letter now. http://www.decaturga.com/index.aspx?page=112
They advocate posting comments and questions on DecaturNext, so why not exhaust that option, too?
I have a Mulberry in my back yard that obviously grew up from bird droppings.
it’s now grown from a shrub into a tree that would qualify.
We keep it because my daughter loves to eat them, when she can get past the squirrels.
But they are the ultimate junk tree and this one tree will create 50 more next year if we don’t do something to slow it.
Since they just released this proposal less than 48 hours ago and are trying to rush it through in 2 weeks (at the end of holiday season, no less), I question how many residents actually know the full extent of what’s going on. Not everyone is internet savvy or fervently follows every civic action up to the minute on blogs and people simply have their own lives. According to the presentation, 40 people from the general public provided input; That’s an easy number to assemble for any certain interest. In the business world, this sample size would be deemed inconsequential.
BTW, where are the detailed cost-benefit analysis, the fee schedule, and the name of the proposed arborist so we can vet him? Something this high in magnitude should not be lacking any details.
Honestly, with the widespread financial impact this will have on the 20k residents of this city (high permit and inspection fees, ability to remodel your property, impact on resell value given the high restrictions), the permanent (and continuously growing) easement created by boundary trees over which you’ll have no control, but still be taxed, and the questions about invasion of private property rights, this should be put to a city-wide vote, if they won’t abandon it outright. After all, voters are squarely found above the City Commission on their org chart.
As others have stated though, it’s pretty simple: Decatur currently has 45% total tree cover. The national urban average is 27% and Atlanta, high on the list with the USDA Forest Service, has 36%. Using UGA’s statistics provided in the presentation from 1991 to 2008, Decatur lost 0.2412% of its canopy per year. In other words, for every 10,000 trees, 24 disappeared. How many dead trees alone have fallen on the roads in the past year? There is no crisis. In the course of that time, Atlanta has hosted the Olympics, Decatur has performed a 180 to revive a thriving square, and density has increased everywhere; it’s what successful cities do.
This started out as a way to limit developers from clear cutting large swaths of land when they develop a large project, which is highly understandable and admirable, especially in maintaining the character of an existing neighborhood. However, the proposed restrictions to homeowners and significant increase of financial burden, is highly outside the boundaries of the original concerns and likely an appeasement to a fringe interest group. Talk about scope creep.
I think a goal of 55% tree canopy is a good one, if it is done on a voluntary and best practices basis instead of the very expensive and restrictive basis as proposed in this ordinance. I don’t think that striving for the 55% goal on a voluntary and best practices manner is beyond our ability to accomplish. We are a very civic-minded city, and if this is indeed a strong city resident goal, I believe that many plantings (even groves) can be accomplished on volunteer days funded by the City and local donors, with perhaps even the schools involved. Best practices could mean higher monitoriing of tree preservation during construction, paid for by fees yes, but at much less cost than as what may be proposed here. Best practices could also mean rewards for aiming for tree preservation, say the flex of certain other zoning restrictions in order to provide for tree preservation (i.e., an additional 2% of impervious surface if that allows for a renovation/addition to preserve the maximum amount of tree canopy, or something like that). We have a lot of current zoning that is in place to preserve character and drainage/stormwater management– those provisions are already expensive to work with. Adding a tree ordinance like this without provision of flexibility for lots where all of these restrictions overlap may mean no ability for the homeowner to improve their property without extreme-to-them expense.
I like CSD’s high goal of being one of the 10 best districts in the country- but I also like that while we pay more than most for school taxes to help strive towards that goal, CSD is not mandating costs to homeowner/tax increases each year until we have enough funds to achieve that goal.
I promise this is my last post.
I was just thinking: the city is going about this the wrong way. The current proposal would enforce people doing something via intimidation and restriction. According to history, that will not work long-term and will create a divide in the community. If you have enough money, you can get what you want; otherwise you’re stuck. That’s not the attitude or approach of a supposedly progressive government that favors equality.
If the goal is truly about tree canopy and not a revenue stream, then I propose the following: Reward good behavior via tax credits. Any Decatur homeowner, who volunteered to plant additional trees on their property, could receive a tax credit each year for a set amount of time (say 3 or 5 years) for each tree. When complete, the site where the tree is planted is no longer eligible for a few years to prevent people from ripping out the tree and gaming the system. A simple chart would list the trees, sorted by categories like variety, size, desirability, etc. and their assigned credit value. Cap the number of eligible trees each year to stagger the canopy growth, establish longevity, and prevent dips in tax revenue. For developers, provide a higher tax credit incentive to keep mature trees based on a similar list of criteria. This would keep administrative costs at a bare minimum, would be less time consuming, and the city could contract an arborist part-time or as necessary to provide assistance with planting, maintenance, etc., when requested. This wouldn’t take any time to set up. Combined with volunteer planting days on public property, I guarantee you would see the program maxed out each year and the canopy goal would be achieved in record time. Operating on a strictly volunteer basis, no one suffers intrusion, remodeling and property rights can continue as desired, and interested participants gain personally while benefitting the larger community. That’s the angle I’m going to approach with the commission.
If the city is more interested in the revenue stream, then I sense an ulterior motive and agenda at work. Ditto goes for the vocal fringe minority, some of whom might show themselves to be more focused on control than trees. At least, that has been my personal experience. I don’t see a reason, though, why rational, reasonable people wouldn’t embrace this and outnumber the opposition. Obviously, if I’ve missed something, please correct me.
I agree about volunteering, both on public property and private property (when desired), and believe that the community would not only lend a hand, but likely go above and beyond. Building on your school idea, Decatur should definitely partner with an organization like Concrete Jungle; it would not only teach volunteers, youth programs, etc. skills about best tree management practices in initial plantings and different varieties of regional foods, but also provide an ongoing opportunity for organizations to fulfill community service hours and harvest edible foods for the homeless. Picking days could become a Decatur tradition. Nurseries would donate trees as they’d gain goodwill in the community, as well as the tax write-off. Win-win.
Since I was an over-achiever and am planting 50% more trees than the CoD tree factor required, I strongly support this sentiment.
No one has addressed the bigger picture so far: We have real concerns already impacting us that need to be addressed:
1. The DeKalb annexation war, which will determine whether we can effectively balance our 85% residential – 15% commercial tax revenue portfolio and help position us for growth in the future. There isn’t enough commercially zoned space in Decatur to do this alone, let alone the amount of time it would take to foster its development. Given how apprehensive to annexation by Decatur many immediately north of the city were last year, this tree mess would definitely make me not want to be annexed, if nothing else for the potential of other future restrictions the city might decide to impose because someone demanded it. If Peggy Merriss and the city are so concerned about annexation, why would you add kinks like a strict tree ordinance or unified code right beforehand?
2. The $60 million bond referendum for school renovations. Without #1, property taxes will be rising, something this household without a current or future child is not interested in, especially when many Decaturites won’t even consider #1. Given the restrictive impact this tree ordinance would place on remodeling / expanding a house, building a garage, etc, I can only see the demand waning as people realize they don’t want to deal with it or can’t afford it. So your property taxes have increased for less value. Unless you’ve already set up or built out your house exactly as you (and future buyers) want it, don’t expect top dollar. Developers, of course, wouldn’t mind underbidding the smaller houses, simply paying into the tree bank, and building large, expensive houses that most can’t afford, meaning this ordinance didn’t slow the developers (the original focus), but had negative repercussions for homeowners.
3. Infrastructure projects, like overhauling the intersections at the 3 train crossings, installing bike lanes and sidewalks, continuing the overhaul of our sewer, water, and utility systems, etc. on PUBLIC property are a city’s purpose. There’s a pretty long list, not including the wish list. Take care of them first.
4. Crime: Besides the numerous traffic infractions that still take place (driving 60mph down Howard Ave, car drivers passing in the bike lane on Ponce, cars not stopping at pedestrian crossings, etc., burglaries and the usual petty crimes are also still taking place, especially in Oakhurst. I can rest assured that my trees will be safe, though.
My point is, the economy is slowly starting to take off again, which will help us fund addressing a lot of the issues and problems that have been discussed here for a while. This proposed tree ordinance, since its actual release on Monday, has rightly generated a lot of criticism in a short amount of time. It needs to be judged for what it really is: an overreaching, misguided, and unnecessary attack on the cash cow that has helped successfully mold Decatur into what it is now and a consequential distraction from the problems we should be addressing.