UPDATE: The city has provided this direct link to Open City Hall, if residents want to make statements directly to the city regarding this ordinance proposal.
The City of Decatur has just posted the final version of the proposed tree ordinance on its website along with…
- Administrative standards – “information on how the ordinance is to be administered and implemented”
- A 11 page list of “Common Questions”
- Ordinance summary – draft recommendations, future improvements, and a summary of public input
Furthermore from the Decatur Minute…
That effort has been underway with the assistance of tree consultant, Connie Head of Technical Forestry Services, and the City Commission is scheduled to consider the recommendations at their regular meeting on January 21st at 7:30pm. Please review the materials and provide your opinion using Open City Hall. The forum for this discussion will be open from January 16th – January 21st (noon).
I’m copying a few Q&As below from the residential section of the FAQ that address some of the reoccurring questions that have come up here over the past week or so, but it’s an 11 page document, so certainly go through it yourself when you have a moment.
Connie Head, an expert in urban forestry and the consultant for this project, believes 55% to be a feasible goal based on the historical data she has reviewed revising tree canopy coverage in the state of Georgia and her experience working on the Decatur Community Forest Master Plan. This goal was presented as a starting point for conversation, and we are certainly open to alternative perspectives. We have identified the canopy goal as one of the main points for feedback from the City Commission.
It’s also important to remember that tree canopy cover can extend over impervious surface. For example large trees in the rear yard of a residential property may have canopy that extends partially over a house.
Q: How will tree value be calculated?
A:The recommended standard tree canopy value is $1.50 per square foot. This amount is based on the average monetary value of the
ecosystem services provided by various species of trees over their expected lifetimes. It is also reflective of the cost to replace this canopy with a new tree, including the cost of purchasing the tree, planting the tree, and the initial maintenance required to establish the tree over a 3 year period.
To compare the current value system with the new value system:
PROPOSED
A large canopy tree, such as an oak, that has reached 1,600 square feet of canopy area would have a value of $2,400 (1,600 * $1.50). That tree would likely have a DBH of around 28 inches.
CURRENT
In the current system, each .5 tree density unit is valued at $275. A 28 inch DBH tree is assigned 4.3 tree density units. The replacement value of that tree would be $2,365.
Q: When can I remove a tree?
- • A certified arborist designates it as having a moderate to high risk of failure that cannot be mitigated.
- • Site plan modifications to prevent irreparable damage to the tree are impossible or not practical, based on a cost and benefit analysis.
- • Intended use of property cannot be achieved without tree removal.
On residential sites, for replacement required by tree removal permits and for projects that increase the impervious cover by less than 10 percent, trees must be a minimum of 6 feet tall at time of planting and if grown in a container, at least in a 15 gallon container. On commercial sites, trees shall be no less than 2.5 inches caliper and 10 feet in height at time of planting. The city arborist may approve smaller size trees for difficult to obtain native shade trees along with documented and appropriate maintenance plans.
When will all Decatur paper need a stamp?
At some point these parallels are not comical.
I did not get an answer back from the city on the question: What % canopy coverage exists in the R80/R60 District.
I did my own quick GIS analysis – and it seems fairly obvious that the R80/R60 residential districts (which excludes multifamily, schools, etc) far exceeds the arbitrary 55% goal/requirement. Have a look at Google Earth – it is pretty straightforward that the canopy holes lie in commercial, schools, churches, parking lots, apartments, etc.
If that is the case, there is not a problem in the R80/R60 district assuming the arbitrary 55% threshold is needed.
Therefore, why would individual plots within the R80/R60 district need to meet the arbitrary requirement that the District itself already exceeds?
Some other questions/thoughts:
1) It would be nice to know the R80/R60 canopy figure that the city has identified.
2) It would be nice to understand if the rule disproportionately places the deficiencies of other districts on to the R80/R60 district.
3) It would be nice to know if the goals of this proposed ordinance have anything to do with trees — I get the sense that some tree supporters back the rule to prevent the subjective “McMansion” from being built, which therefore discourages some new families (outsiders) from moving into the City and enrolling their children in the public schools. In general I feel that some wish to prevent change of any kind.
This makes me really sad… change is inevitable. A misguided, confusing and over-zealous tree ordinance is not going to stop that. It will just make life more difficult, complicated and expensive for everyone.
Your R60 coverage questions are all we needed. A defined question with defined criteria and defined solutions. Present the map and ask the public “Is there a problem?” I bet the majority would say it looks fine the way it is. How many would support covering the courthouse or Oakhurst Elementary’s playground with trees? Probably about the same amount that would like others dictating what they do at home. We should split the consulting fee.
This is completely about control. Yes, fear of change leads to the need to control. Others suffer traumatic experiences or low self-esteem and some just think they’re entitled. Ultimately, it’s a losing battle full of complaints and obsession where they’ll never be satisfied. I had a girlfriend in college with control issues and it got old fast…
In this instance, it seems what started out as a vague, general question about developers was overtaken by a small group with a personal control agenda that likes petitions. Google Oakhurst what gentrification looks like and go from there.
Help me here. I have a 50 inch tree that an arborist told me several years ago is unsafe.
It was more than $8K then to take down. So, it remains 8 feet from our house.
I’m not clear whether we now have to pay another $150 for another arborist to tell us the same thing, another $150 for the city arborist to agree (or not), then another $2500 in tree recompense and plantings?
Also, what if I’d like to get some sun in my yard so my puny garden will perform better? Am I required to keep it in the shade?
You are correct as far as my understanding to this point.
Not so sure Thomas Paine would approve of these shenanigans by our astute local government.
My name is Lena Stevens and I’m the Resource Conservation Coordinator for the City of Decatur. I’ll be jumping in to answer clarifying questions as often as I can over the next few days. We know this process has happened quickly, so my goal is to help you understand this proposal in whatever way I can.
In the situation you described where you have a large tree in your yard that is considered unsafe, we would ask a few questions.
1) Has a certified arborist designated it as moderate to high risk as defined by ANSI – the American National Standards Institute? If the answer is yes, you would still need to obtain a permit for removal, but replanting requirements would be waived. You could certainly submit an older analysis from a certified arborist for review. It would be at the discretion of the City Arborist to accept that documentation.
Let’s say that the tree is unsafe, but doesn’t quite rise to the level of moderate or high risk. We would move on to the next set of questions:
2) Would your property have more than 55% canopy after the tree is removed? If the answer is yes, again you would have to obtain a permit but no replanting requirements would be required.
3) If the tree is lower risk, and you would have less than 55% canopy after the removal, replanting would be required to maintain no net loss. Essentially you would have to replace that tree with one that has the potential to replace its canopy somewhere on your property. This replacement tree would need to be a minimum of 6 feet tall in a 15-gallon container. You can purchase trees like this at most large home improvement stores for less than $100.
Now let’s say that you don’t want to replace all that canopy on your property. You can choose to pay into the tree bank to meet up to 50% of the requirement. A standard large tree is estimated at 1,600 square feet, so lets use that for our purposes. You may choose to plant a medium tree on your property (800 sq. ft.) and pay for the remainder. That payment is calculated at $1.50 per square foot, so 800 * $1.50 = $1200.
What are the options for a homeowner who has had a tree deemed low-risk by the city arborist that a.) has no reasonable place to plant a new tree and b.) doesn’t have an extra $1200 bucks lying around?
What exactly does a Resource Conservation Coordinator do?
Wow, I didn’t realize Decatur had a “Resource Conservation Coordinator”. I would like to suggest that property rights are an important resource to conserve. This proposed law assumes everyone is a bad actor and penalizes all the homeowners and undeveloped commercial properties in the city. Prediction: All citizens suffer under an empowered, expensive and overworked arborist ( perhaps from Wyoming like the consultant advising the city ) and the bad actors still take out beautiful heirloom trees and replace them with crappy 15 gal Home Depot Trees. Oh, and don’t forget to mulch – or you may get fined.
+infinity.
I also saw Commerce, GA listed on Linked-in. Regardless, to even entertain this, why wasn’t a local, urban consultant used? But why adapt to urban necessities and constraints? Everyone here lives on open, rolling farmland…
Reading the proposal, the only way one arborist would be sufficient is if all activity ceases. Otherwise, between mitigating complaints from angry / frustrated residents and monitoring their properties, monitoring any developers, monitoring utility companies and others for adherence to their annual plans, and directing public land plantings, that one arborist will be demanding a raise or more help. How much does this cost again and who’s paying for it? Don’t even think the tree bank would make a difference.
I’m happy to pay for value and quality, but given the diminishing return from proposals like this, I’m taxed out.
The Commerce Ga address is a residential address on a country road outside of Commerce. Ironically even there doesn’t appear to have 55% canopy. The corporate entity is in Wyoming ,and the web site talks about its experience in Wyoming. I am wondering how this consultant was chosen – seems really odd .
Were there Decatur forestry consultants who bid on this job and were turned down?
JJKale, I admire your passion and respect your opinion. I also love trees, but feel they should be planted and cared for voluntarily. Regarding the consultant hiring, I found this in the Nov. 4 commission meeting minutes:
“City Manager Merriss recommended that the City Commission approve a project
budget of $10,000 and authorize acceptance of a proposal from Technical Tree Services
in an amount of $7,700 to develop a new tree ordinance. She stated that Connie Head
would be the primary consultant on the project. City Manager Merriss noted that
Resource Conservation Coordinator Lena Stevens would be the primary staff contact and
that the Environmental Sustainability Board (ESB) would be serving as the Project
Steering Committee with board member Steve Provost taking the lead for ESB.”
I do not know what the process of selection by the city manager (Merriss) was, but assume it was all above board. I do find it interesting that in the current open city hall comments for the tree ordinance, of the 10 strongly support responses, 2 are from members of the steering committee (the ESB) and 1 from a spouse. Most of the rest are unsigned. I agree with other posters that most people in the city know very little about the proposed ordinance and have not read it. This is being pushed through way too fast.
Hi, Lena — Thank you for the information. And thank you for wading into this thicket of animosity, where posters are free to assail you behind the veil of an anonymous screen name.
One thing I’d be interested in seeing is a side-by-side comparison of the current and proposed Decatur tree protection ordinances. (Maybe this already exists and I just haven’t seen it yet.) Some of the outraged comments I’ve seen are in opposition to existing provisions of current ordinances.
Thanks, and keep up the good work.
I’m not sure people are against a tree ord.,..just this one.
Why cant the Government use the carrot instead of the stick?
Why not tax breaks for preserving trees on single family property instead of a new tax for removing?
Why not a tax break for adding trees to your property?
There are other options. Don’t bend for the first option.
+1,000,000!!!
JJ Kale – who are you talking about? No one has assailed anyone. And most of the comments are from regulars to this blog. I’m sure DM could chime in and say this is the first time some of the regulars have ever agreed on a non-food related issue. This proposed ordnance is really that bad.
Lena – is there a figure for the current canopy coverage in just the R-80 and R-60 districts? Thanks in advance for finding and posting this number.
Lena – If my neighbor removes a border tree which has a trunk on his property, but gives me 1,000 square feet of canopy coverage, what is the outcome? This could financially impact me if I chose to apply for a building permit – would that person have to pay me money due to my loss of canopy coverage? Any guidance on this would again be much appreciated – this is actually a situation that could happen this year and I want to know what to be prepared for if the ordinance is passed. The ordinance does not address such a situation, however.
Lena – one more additional question. Here is the scenario – let’s say there is nowhere for me to plant trees and I have to pay into the tree bank. Does that payment cover me forever, for a year or a couple years, or until the next time I require a permit or have to take a dead tree down or something like that. The ordinance doesn’t answer this (I don’t think).
In summary, would I have to pay into the tree bank more than one time?
Thank you in advance for your answer to this question and my two previous questions.
Here is the really scary part: a tree that size could be considered a boundary tree because its critical root system is considered to extend 1.25 x DBH or 62.5 feet in your case – which probably is outside of your property line.Thus it is also technically your neighbors tree too. Believe me, there will be litigation between neighbors over this broad definition.
So, if I follow your logic, you think it is OK and within your property rights to do something on your property that causes a tree belonging to your neighbor to die? Does that mean you have property rights and your neighbor does not?
But if I follow your logic, you’re telling me that something my neighbor does can dictate what I can do with my property. Does that mean my neighbor can grant themselves rights to my property by planting border trees? Does having a border tree grant them veto rights on my property?
If I know my neighbor has a five year plan to expand their footprint towards my side of their property, I can stop this by spending a bunch of money and planting some 8″ fast growing trees 3′ from the property line. Should I really be able to grant myself rights to your property just by planting something on my property?
“Does that mean my neighbor can grant themselves rights to my property by planting border trees? Does having a border tree grant them veto rights on my property?”
Yes, that is what many proponents of this restrictive ordinance think you should be able to do. I believe that our esteemed mayor flat out said that this was a great benefit of the ordinance. And this is why we must fight it!
Next you property rights zealots will tell me that I can’t walk in your house and help myself to your liquor stash.
You can have my stash when you pry it from my cold, drunk hands.
Good one!
It’s a good idea to keep some cheap stuff around for these purposes. When my dad asks for a scotch and soda (shudder) I give him Famous Grouse. The Lagavulin and Highland Park is just for me!
Logically, your neighbor would not be able to install trees on the border with sufficient time to create a root system that could be damaged by your construction unless your neighbor took 5-10 years to follow through with that planned development. Any 8’in tree I plant on my border – which would be expensive as heck – would not have a tree root system that reached past your yard set back in one year. Should I not plant trees on the border just in case my future neighbor might be planning to expand the footprint of their home in 10 years?
Again, the ordinance does not say you are prohibited from building your addition that complies with the FAR and lot coverage. It states that you must put up a refundable bond to guarantee that your construction methods will not kill your neighbor’s tree.
“unless your neighbor took 5-10 years to follow through”
Might be why my example used 5 years.
“Any 8′in tree I plant on my border – which would be expensive as heck – would not have a tree root system that reached past your yard set back in one year”
Apparently you’ve never seen how fast a Chinese Empress can grow. I could be in my neighbor’s neighbor’s yard in five years.
“Should I not plant trees on the border just in case my future neighbor might be planning to expand the footprint of their home in 10 years?”
You should plant anything you want anywhere you want. But whatever you choose shouldn’t have any impact on my property, and shouldn’t require me to post a bond to guarantee anything.
How fast roots grow is not the point. Someone should not be able to prevent their neighbor from expanding their home by planting border trees, even if it is 10 or 15 years down the road. Although there may not be an outright prohibition, when you factor in other replanting and tree bank costs (on top of very expensive tree removal costs) and the costs of the bond itself, the total “tree” bill could easily be $20k, which would make the expansion cost prohibitive.
I will use my house as an example. I expanded back a couple of years ago, so I think I am priced out of the teardown market for the foreseeable future. But, I have neighbors who live in unexpanded homes and have school age children. Absent some unforseen circumstance, they won’t leave in the next 10 years until their kids graduate from DHS. But, after that, who knows. So, based on this ordinance, if I was so inclined, I could plant border trees along both common boundary lines to make sure (or at least make it very, very expensive) that neither of my neighbors’ homes could be expanded by the next owner (or developer). That is indefensible (even more so when you consider that I have already expanded). The bundle of rights I purchased doesn’t include control over the neighboring lots.
If you plant a tree on your yard where it might be harmed by your neighbor, you chose to take that risk and only you should have to “guarantee” its survival. If you want to make sure your tree isn’t harmed, plant it right in the middle of your lot.
Ronald Coase told us how to solve this problem a long time ago, and it does not involve overbearing government regulation.
If you have a 50incher that’s going to cost $8K to remove, it better not be healthy or your recompense is going to be closer to $7K.
I’m a Decatur liberal and this is more government intrusion than I can handle. Set a canopy goal for City property, fine, but leave my yard out of it.
Agreed, keep it on city property.
At the risk of having to turn in my liberal card, I agree.
I agree too. This is getting a bit crazy. It is my property and I should be able to have as much or as little tree coverage as I decide. Go plant a tree in Decatur Square.
Me too. This entire proposal seems like a big, complicated rush to solve a non-existent problem.
I would like to see a real example of tree canopy calculated. My yard has about 60 trees jumbled together. What do you do with that? and what about the baby trees that we have planted in the last few years, do they get future credit or just their current canopy? Please give an example of something complicated, not a single tree in a blank yard. And what is the procedure and cost for me to establish this? Is it a complicated survey of each individual tree and it’s size? How much would that cost a homeowner like me if I just want to do a little bit of tree work? And what about removing a limb?
I think this is gonna double the cost of tree work within the city limits. NOT HAPPY. The city is actually encouraging people to count canopy over their homes, bad bad practice. Is the city liable for it when someone’s home is damaged or they are killed because they are trying to comply with this thing?
This gives way too much power to the city arborist. I plan on attending the meeting but the commissioners have already decided to stamp this thing as soon as they can.
It appears that the city used Google Earth in their presentation.
google earth is not real time; it is a couple years behind. I can point out several trees that show up on google earth on lots in my neighborhood that are no longer there. And do they have some kind of software that calculates this based on how it looks from above with this out of date picture? It is really hard to tell what is a tree and what is an azalea in my yard. And the time of year the picture is snapped at google earth makes a big difference as well: leaves or no leaves. I would like to see an example of how this is calculated on a complex yard as well as understand who pays for this analysis.
And 55 percent has not been justified anywhere. The forestry consultant from wyoming likes 55%. From the group of 30 that went to the holiday meeting, 28 wanted at least 55%. Where is the precedent in an urban city? Where is there any scientific justification for this? And why stop at 55? why not 75%? or even 100? I think urban forests are neat, but we live in a city, not a forest. If we want to buy land as a city and establish or protect remaining forested parcels, that is a different issue. It is silly to try to make our current neighborhoods into urban forests.
I laughed when I saw the 30 count for public input at a meeting they intentionally attend. The count and methodology used aren’t nearly enough to be considered a representative sampling or acceptable cross-section. In a city of approx. 20,000, 30 represents 0.15%.
Only someone pushing an agenda would accept those results. I could get 29 others to sign a petition to make baked beans the new state bird.
You want your voice heard? Show up to the meetings!
I have to wonder how many of the vociferous “private property rights advocates” posting on this site are Decatur residents.
Almost all, I can assure you.
Dequator in the house!
This one is. But I’ve now got to wonder how many of the vociferous “protect the trees at any and all cost” proponents are not City of Decatur residents and are thus free to try to foist these onerous costs and restrictions on us without feeling the pain themselves.
We’re a CoD residents and pay the taxes on three separate lots to prove it.
That must mean our opinion carries three times the weight as yours.
I just used Google Earth to look at my neighborhood and it seems there is a huge amount of tree canopy… more than in reality it seemed to me… Some areas that are free of trees appeared to be covered by them….plus, much of the shade over my yard I’d from my neighbors’ trees. The house we lived in prior to this (in Decatur) had one tree but the property was nearly entirely covered by the canopy of our neighbors. Raking was a humongous chore! So how is the 55% determined? And if my neighbors remove a tree that shaded my entire back yard but only a small portion of theirs, who pays the fine or has to plant trees?
My personal concern is that I have an oddly shaped back yard–it’s triangular so the front is 50 feet and it gets rather narrow at the back. We have a dying oak ( it has lost most of it’s branches to is not providing very much canopy) that an arborist has looked at and suggested not to take it out as it is not in the direct line of any house if it falls. If this tree falls or if we have it removed I would like to replace it but there is not any good place to plant a large tree because of existing tree roots. My yard is also steeply sloped and has trees already in the flat parts, except for a small patch where we have a garden… And if I plant trees there I will have no place to grow my veggies….
I have decided to relocate volunteer oak seedlings to the area near the dying tree, but they are slow growing and will take a while to get to 6 feet. I have a poplar that will probably fill out if there is less shade. Will smaller trees like dogwood and holly count in the canopy total? They won’t shade houses but will shade people. And could possibly be planted on the slope. I really would hate to have to pay a tree fine for having a lousy yard (and no we don’t eat out much or take fancy vacations).
That said, there is a noticeable temperature difference in the summer between my shady neighborhood and the less shady downtown Decatur. Maintaining a good tree canopy is a good thing. Maybe we could do it with incentives rather than fines?
Sorry for the auto check typos
Actually, looking at the ordinance I did not see any requirements for lots smaller than 60 like mine. Would small lots be exempt?
R-60 Zoning also includes lots with smaller than 60 feet of frontage, at least at this time. It is basically our residential zoning category. The new Unified Development ordinance likely will include a separate zoning category for 50 feet and smaller lots (which would like also be kept as a category covered by the tree ordinance).
#19 on the Q/A list is frightening.
Anyone who impacts impervious surface by 10% or more would be required to bring their lot to 55% coverage. What kind of idea is that? What if the house is at 10% coverage? Man, that’s a lot of small plantings and for what reason?
This also looks like the arborist protection plan. Someone is guaranteeing full employment for anyone who can say they are a certified arborist.
I believe that is if you are permitting for an addition to your house that exceeds the existing square footage by 10%. Kinda keeps people from expanding out, so we must expand up.
This is gonna be interesting. The same people who complain about McMansions are likely the same people behind this ordinance. So, the unintended consequence is more inconsistent roof lines because homeowners now half to go up to avoid paying thousands to the city to remove trees to make full use of their land.
This is definitely the most ironic unintended consequence. And it WILL be a real consequence in at least one case if this ordinance is passed because I can guarantee it would make us to decide to build up rather than building back.
I complain about the poorly constructed overpriced houses that have been popping up the last few years and I think this ordinance is whack like Whitney’s crack. You need not generalize.
#16 scares me. ” risk of failure that cannot be mitigated”. When I took a tree down last year at the advice of an arborist, she told me that it would cost as much or more to try to save the tree as take it down, and it wouldn’t get any stronger even if I halted the disease. What if the city arborist disagrees and demands I spend thousands first trying to save a tree, only to spend thousands more later for removal? Is the city going to pay me back for money I wasted trying to save a 65 year old oak? What happens if the tree falls and hurts someone (or worse) or destroys a home? Can i sue the city because the city arborists’s bias against tree removal caused me harm? This is effing ridiculous. Anyone else wanna recall Baskett and elect a real leader?
Long as it is not developer consultant Bill Floyd with his annexation agenda
Here are two interesting parts of the ordinance – if trees are not watered or mulched correctly you have committed a misdemeanor? If a tree dies, will there be police tape and an investigation?
###
Tree Maintenance Requirements
All protected trees shall be maintained in accordance with current ANSI A300 Standards for Tree Care Operations, ANSI Z133 Safety Standards, industry best management practices, and the administrative standards that accompany the tree ordinance. Planted trees shall be maintained throughout the establishment period. Maintenance shall include, at a minimum, watering, mulching, training pruning, and if necessary, pest management.
###
Violations
Any person, firm or corporation violating or failing to comply with any of the provisions of the tree ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be subject to penalties as provided in Section 1-7 of the Decatur city code.
Violations may result in the withholding of a certificate of occupancy, revocation or revision of a permit, issuance of a stop work order, or issuance of a court citation. Examples of violations include, but are not limited to:
• Protected tree removal without a tree removal permit
• Land disturbance or land development without a tree disturbance permit or approved tree conservation plan
• Improperly installed or maintained tree protection
• Encroachment of 20 percent or more of a tree protection zone.
That is straight-up incredible.
I don’t know much about this yet, but I suspect that what they are saying is that you can’t just buy the worst looking clearance tree at Home Depot and stick it in the ground without ever watering it and meet the replacement requirement.
Um, I don’t water anything in the yard. Ever. My philosophy is that if it cannot survive on its own, it doesn’t belong in my yard. And if it got there of its own free will and is surviving without my help, it probably belongs there. Unless it’s about to become a projectile.
You are obviously not a gardener.
Not. At. All. So I can try to comply with the ordinance but I don’t own a watering can or a long hose.
Watering trees is only necessary when there is a drought. Usually, trees are just fine.
Remember, Gang, the people who will decide whether or not this rather enthusiastic piece of legislation becomes law do not have ESP. Let your city council members know how you feel.
District 1 (roughly north of the tracks):
Fred.Boykin AT decaturga DOT com
Scott.Drake AT decaturga DOT com
District 2 (roughly south of the tracks):
Kecia.Cunningham AT decaturga DOT com
Patti.Garret AT decaturga DOT com
At-large:
jim.baskett AT decaturga DOT com
Ever wonder why we have such high taxes? Might it be because we pay for salaries for people to solve problems that dont exist in the first place?
Then, once we have the ordinance, we can go hire a few more people to administer it.
This is nuts.
Anyone know which elected member of the commission is primarily responsible?
Not to derail this, but I believe you pay high taxes because of the school system. (Or so I’ve been told.) I’ll be quiet now. 🙂
Correction in the post title, the vote is scheduled for Tuesday, not Monday, due to the MLK holiday.
Thanks Dan!
How many of the commenters above attended the meetings to share these same concerns or provide feedback leading up to this vote?
Unfortunately the meetings happened before the ordinance was available – so we would not have known what concerns to share. The process did not allow for real community dialogue.
All by design.
Take a look at the summary of public input. From the open city hall questions in 2012 they got evenly split responses over the question of if we need an ordinance at all. I guess this did not make city hall powers happy, so what did they do? They took another survey (when was this? I responded to the open city hall thing but I do not remember seeing the National Citizen Survey from feb/mar 2012) and this one got a little closer to the desired goal, slightly higher numbers wanting an ordinance, but still wishy washy 55 to 45 on the issue of do we even want an ordinance at all. So, they got even more clever. At a busy time of year they got a good group of 30 mostly zealots (yes I missed this meeting since it was right before the holidays and I was quite busy, but I think that was by design of the city hall). So, now they got the answer they like. Who cares if it was a very limited survey? Now the only question from city hall is how fast can they get this in place?
I did, and my comments weren’t recorded in the synopsis. This process was given the veneer of community input where none really existed. The Wyoming based tree consultants had more input than the citizens and got paid. We will get taxed , fined and dismissed .
Mac or DawgFan,
Can you tell me what did take place that you felt excluded from? Or are you saying there was no opportunity for public input? I thought meetings were held to get input from the community to craft the ordinance and now the city has unveiled the results on that effort.
Lena Stevens,
Can you tell me what opportunites residents had to weigh in prior to the activity this month? Usually there are public discussions and surveys via the City website. I’m wondering if, when, and where these may have taken place?
You can’t comment on something that doesn’t exist.
But it exists now. It’s not passed. Review, reaction and advocacy is what’s happening now. Contact your commissioners. Get on the record at Open City Hall. Go to the meeting. It’s not that complicated.
I intend to. I was refuting the implication that I should just shut up because I didn’t attend a meeting to comment on a yet to be drafted ordinance.
No implication was made for you to just shut up. I was simply asking a. how many opportunities for public input were given and b. how many people commenting here participated. It actually matters to me because the answers to these questions shape my opinion on this ordinance.
The city is crafting a speed limit proposal to change limits city-wide. The proposal is being crafted based on studies and community feedback. You have input on this proposal by attending the meetings, filling out surveys, or probably emailing the person in charge. If they propose to change to 15 mph throughout the entire city, would you be upset?
My apologies. That is a common response here when people express displeasure with the city.
It may not be passed but if they have already created a new position and hired someone to fill it, then it certainly will. Do you know if that’s the case or not regarding the position?
Bull. The meetings were well publicized, on the city website, on this blog, and on other local blogs.
Yes, but the ordinance wasn’t available to review at that time.
Although I knew a tree ordinance was being discussed, I guess I put too much trust in our elected officials to protect our private property rights. I don’t think anyone (except for the zealots who orchestrated this fiasco (which unfortunately might include a commissioner or two)) expected anything like this. This started as anti-development, not anti-homeowner.
Your argument is hollow. There is simply no supporting the position that the proposed ordinance was properly communicated or the position that the public has adequate time to read, research, comment, etc. The proposed ordinance was published last night and the vote is Tuesday.
There was no secret conspiracy to hide this from the public. Check out http://www.decaturga.com in the future if you want to know what city meetings are coming up.
You’re welcome.
“Although I knew a tree ordinance was being discussed”
JJKale – There was an info meeting prior to the drafting of the ordinance where comments were taken from those in attendance but the commissioners were not officially present.. Then there was a working meeting by the commissioners where no comments were allowed. The ordinance was published last night, and the vote is this coming Tuesday. So there have been no public comment opportunities where you could address the commissioners.
The meetings were publicized just like any other city meetings. There was additional publicity via local media and sites like this one.
The following documents have been available on the city’s web site since October 2013:
Tree Removal handout: http://www.decaturga.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=4555
Tree Removal Moratorium proposed ordinance: http://www.decaturga.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=4554
Moratorium Tree Protection Plan Review Process: http://www.decaturga.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=4570
Decatur Tree Protection Plan Checklist: http://www.decaturga.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=4571
JJKale – None of those have to do with the new proposed tree ordinance – which was just posted last night.
Please stop. You clearly have made yourself feel better by convincing yourself that this proposed ordinance was property noticed. It wasn’t, and you aren’t going to convince anyone otherwise.
Since we’ve only had 24hrs to review the ordinance with only 3 business days before the vote, it certainly isn’t how I want any non-emergent city decisions to be made.
As the fee schedule and potential legal ramifications affecting property owners were completely unavailable during ANY of the public meetings, the meetings themselves had zero value.
Given how this so quickly happened over the holidays, and real information was only being release before a 3 day weekend leading up to the vote, it sure seems like someone planned this.
No ordinance that has this much impact on personal property rights and has such a huge financial impact on property owners should be decided in this time frame.
I don’t think any ordinance of this magnitude should be decided upon outside of a city-wide referendum.
Yes, this undermines the trust we have in our local government, not just because of the proposed ordinance itself, which basically views us all as tree-hating criminals, but because of the process to date, which has seemingly excluded us from awareness, preparation, or input.
I can think of a few, defined problems that have led to this point:
1. Lack of a defined problem: Leaving the question broad like “Should we have an ordinance?” leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Is this about developers, canopy, gentrification, what? It’s contentious because the leadership didn’t have a clearly direction defined by the majority of citizens from the beginning; that’s why they can’t sell it and the number of holes keeps growing.
2. The Process: It obviously doesn’t work. People are complaining about exclusion; the lack of comments in the city online forums doesn’t help (10 quoted in the presentation?). It’s obvious a major failure point is communication. Had the city mailed each property owner an official letter with a clearly defined agenda or question from the beginning, you would have had a much larger turnout from the beginning. We probably would have saved a bit of money in the process, too. What we have now is a wishlist from a fringe group that thinks their ideas thrown around in a couple brainstorming sessions should be law, no questions asked. Large matters that have a significant impact on every citizen should always be put to a vote after plenty of vetting.
3. Timing: Companies don’t push anything major toward the end of the year because people are busy. Some were traveling for work. Others were working late hours to finish year end, had other commitments like Christmas office parties and activities for their kids, were trying to balance seeing different relatives, etc. Only someone with an agenda would try to expedite something this radical during that time.
What other unnecessary fire drills will we be subjected to this year? Are we voters or subjects?
My husband and I have been to the meetings. It really does not matter what is said they have an agenda and know what their plans are before the meeting even starts. The control they are placing on citizens of Decatur is CRAZY!
Curious- I haven’t commented above, but I’ve shared my displeasure with the form of ordinance in prior DM threads. I also showed up to the community feedback session during the holidays (terrible timing). I love trees, but when I asked one of the planners how all this tree regulation would fit in with all the other building restrictions like 40 percent lot coverage limits, and spoke of cumulative impact on homeowners, she basically said she didn’t know, and that the other development laws were being re-written later this year (the UDO effort). I then asked how easy it was to change the tree ord if it turned out to be not very compatible with the UDO, and she again didn’t know. Too many unknowns during that meeting- and certainly no ordinance to review and comment on.
Oh, and my written comments at the public meeting included provision for a tree bank if this ord were to pass. However, I had no idea how expensive that tree bank option would be- especially as we were provided no cost estimates at the meeting.
We have friends in Decatur who are starting the process of expanding their home to accommodate their expanding family. They love the charm of their little house and are expanding back instead of up so the front of their house will remain unchanged. Althought their neighborhood is full of trees, I can’t think of a single large tree on their very small lot. So, if this ordinance passes before they receive permits, they will either (i) have to spend thousands of dollars more to plant and/or pay into the tree bank (assuming they can) or (ii) move. They aren’t taking a single tree down, but they would be forced to plant or pay, or both. How is that right? This is nothing short of condemnation – although they have done nothing to shrink the canopy, they can no longer use their land to expand their home b/c they don’t currently have the arbitrary 55%.
Therefore, does this rule financially discourage families from moving to Decatur, or does it financially discourage expanding families from remaining in Decatur? Is that the point? Some people will pay the price and some people will not be able to. Is it about trees or something else?
What is this about? This is a bunch of zealouts trying to impose thier will on the entire city and they don’t give a damn about who it affects or how it affects them, so long as “their” trees are protected. One caveat – if this ordinance has the desired side effect of reducing re-development in “their” neighborhoods, they won’t lose any sleep over that either.
I don’t follow what you are claiming here. “Your friend” has no protected trees on their lot. Are you saying that the construction would impact the border trees that are actually on their neighbor’s yard? If so, I believe that would trigger the need to put up a bond, not pay into the tree bank. A bond would have to be put up to guarantee that their work did not harm the neighbor’s trees. After a period of time the bond would be released assuming the work did not kill the tree during that time period.
So, should “your friend” be allowed to kill their neighbor’s trees during construction? Does the neighbor not have property rights too? Should I be able to kill my neighbor’s tree to convenience what I want to do?
Speaking of economic impact may be should also consider the $100 increase in utility cost 4-5 months out of the year for the neighbor who loses that large tree that shades their home?
Sara, if you had read the proposed ordinance you would have noted that the person Dawgfan is talking about would be required to bring up the property to the 55% canopy level if their addition adds 10% impervious area. They may have no trees now, but they would be buying a bunch if they chose to add on, else pay to the tree bank.
And I am assuming that you are not the Sara W from the ESB since you are so unfamiliar with the proposed ordinance. If you are, please disclose that here and read the ordinance more carefully.
From the Q&A:
“If the impervious surface of the site is increasing by over 10%, the entire site will need to be brought into compliance with the stated tree canopy coverage goal.”
So, although they aren’t removing trees, they will have to bring their lot up to 55% coverage to expand their home.
Regarding the A/C bills, shouldn’t you be paying the neighbor for the benefit you are receiving from their tree?
“Speaking of economic impact”
What if the removal of that tree allowed the property owner to install a solar array that decreases their utility bill by $100, 7 months out of the year? Should I have to curb my own economic gain because I need to accommodate my neighbors benefit of something that’s on my property?
There are just no words….
Yes, there are. It’s just that my comments keep getting moderated when I use them.
Contrast with my recent experience in removing a large tree in Avondale.
Me to City hall: Hi. I have a large tree that’s clearly dying and I’d feel safer removing it. Any permit requirements?
City hall: No.
Me: Thanks!
A rare case of government as it should be.
another point to Avondale!
Have you read Avondale Estates tree ordinance?
Sara, when I lived in avondale a few years ago, there was not a requirement for an individual homeowner to get a tree work permit to remove a tree unless they were doing tree work along with a construction project. That may have changed in the last 3 years, but if it did I can’t find it on their website. I believe they do have a complicated ordinance that includes tree protection zones etc for land disturbance permits associated with renovations and new construction.
Nope. I asked my service provider if there any requirements, then called City hall myself to verify. That’s all the due diligence I’m doing as to whether I can cut down my own tree.
I have made few comments on the many threads relating to the Tree Ordinance because 1) I have no clue about trees or ordinances; 2) I hope to downsize before it becomes an issue for us personally; 3) we are not a handy or gardening family so we kind of overlook anything related to yards unless we think our nice neighbors would be upset; and 4) my husband loves trees unconditionally while I think they are potential flying objects that can crush houses, cars, and people.
But after reading all these comments, most of which went soaring over my head, of one thing, I am sure. The City will have to do a tremendous job of teaching citizens like me about 1) what the heck the ordinance means; and 2) what we are supposed to do about it on a practical, every day level. I’m talking about COD Tree Ordinance for Dummies (COD TOD) in every mailbox. I know that ignorance of the law is no excuse but I’m pretty sure that there’s some kind of requirement about government materials having to be written on an 8th grade level in plain language and providing citizens with assistance and answers to questions. I am going to need very clear implementation instructions with flow charts: If this, then that. And a COD TOD live assistance hotline.
I am trying hard to wrap my mind around the proposed ordinance.
It sounds like if I need to down a protected tree (mature or boundary) I would need to get a permit in advance. Assuming the permit is approved, I would need to then replant and maintain 6ft trees to come into compliance with the 55% canopy requirement. About 3 or 4 such plantings or may be required depending on the size of my lot and current canopy. I guess such trees at Lowes and Ace run between $100 – $200.
If I do this, would I also have to pay into the tree bank?
As a homeowner, what else do I need to understand?
Stupid question but what the heck: in terms of replanting 6 ft trees–6 ft at the time of planting or 6 ft eventually? The latter, right? 6 ft trees won’t fit in my minivan.
Sorry AHID, you’re going to have to rent a truck or get those trees delivered! Per the “Resource Conservation Coordinator of the City of Decatur”: “This replacement tree would need to be a minimum of 6 feet tall in a 15-gallon container. You can purchase trees like this at most large home improvement stores for less than $100.”
I need a sun roof.
And cheap labor. 15 gallon trees are heavy and require a big hole to plant.
I would guess that the same company that cuts down a tree would also offer a service to replant a tree. If not, they should. It could be a package deal to win your business.
They already offer the service. When I had three taken down, they said they could put another one in for “four or five hundred dollars”. Even if you only have to replant one, the costs isn’t insubstantial. This proposed ordinance places huge financial burdens on homeowners to address a yet to be articulated problem.
Aw come on, ya’ll rich Decaturites can afford it. That’s just one week of groceries at Whole Foods or a couple of trips to the Kimball House for cocktails and oysters, right?
Hey now, liberals seem to be agreeing on this one. Let’s be nice! 😉
Has anyone contacted the locals news stations to investigate or expose this?
I doubt the majority of Decatur’s citizens know about this actual proposal, from the older and economically disadvantaged that these supporters love to champion to people with real concerns like kids and busy work schedules, or those who assume that their city government has not gone off the deep end and doesn’t need to be monitored for every single thing. Who has time to become an expert on every single topic?
This is basically a significant tree tax on our own properties fueled by spite and the city just threatened us with enforcement, including random monitoring. It applies to all property owners involuntarily, without a public vote, but with the threat of severe punishment. Each day that each property owner doesn’t comply with what they want (you and your spouse both count), including now required tree maintenance like annual mulching, counts as a separate misdemeanor offence with no max limit, including withholding certificate of occupancy and additional fines. If you choose to fight them in the courts, they could lead you to financial ruin.
Any lawyers care to chime in on legality?
It’s expensive enough owning and maintaining a house. This would remove all incentive to own property, let alone start a business in Decatur.
How much did the trees pay in property taxes last year?
And how many car break-ins and burglaries have there been in Decatur over the last month?
Why would legality matter? The folks who can afford to pay the tax will suck it up and pay it. The poor schlubs who can’t afford it won’t be able to afford the legal fight either!
Re: the news media – I can assure you the TV people will be all over it if the crowd is spilling out the door and into the street on Tuesday night. And, thanks to Andrea Schneiderman, Burrel Ellis and others, they know how to find downtown Decatur.
Just went to Open City Hall to comment on this ordinance. The only question I have is, do I submit my comment under Shopping, Speed Limits or Celebrate The Arts? As of right now, those are the only open topics. I’m sure that this is just an oversight and the commission really wants to hear from us…
The fix is in…
According to the post on The Decatur Minute, the Open City Hall tree topic goes live today. It doesn’t specify a time, though, so I assume it’s forthcoming.
So we have 5 days to read comprehend and comment over a holiday weekend. Comments close at noon Tuesday and then they vote at 7:30. Does this really sound right? What is the rush?
Same experience here J_T. I have to say . . . This is such a huge, drastic change with some major questions to be answered. It sure doesn’t seem as if it’s really open for debate. Maybe Scott’s right and we are just making this harder than it really is. Maybe we are dense. But perception is reality. And the “fix is in” perception is not being counteracted.
My two questions: 1. what makes 55% the right number? I really don’t care what one city-paid arborist says about that number. What evidence do we have that says we are going to be better off with 10% more coverage? 2. Do we really want to require our city center, where we need more building density, to participate in this canopy project. There are places for trees and there are places for no trees. Aren’t we hampering development downtown by forcing trees on commercial lots where they won’t fit, or really don’t belong to begin with? We need more buildings downtown. It’s already paved over. Plant trees all you want on the public right of way, but please, for goodness sake, don’t require developers to plant trees on their own property downtown. This makes absolutely positively no sense. It’s been said that Manhattan is the most environmentally friendly place in the country because its density allows us to save green space where green space belongs – parks and places outside the city center. Cramming trees on commercial lots doesn’t really help much and actually counteracts the city center goals of building a more active downtown. Street trees: great. A lone tree tucked behind a building just to meet this requirement: silly.
Can the trees go on top of buildings to meet the requirement? E.g. penthouse gardens?
Funny how you and I agree on this while looking at it from very different prespectives. I guess this ordinance isn’t good for anyone.
You want proof? Go to coolclimate (dot) berkeley (dot) edu/maps Look at what areas have the lower carbon footprint. It ain’t the leafy suburbs. Atlanta looks like a donut. Intown, with arguably a lower tree canopy ratio, is WAY greener than our suburbs with density restrictions, suburban lots with gobs of trees, and with very few urban centers. Brooklyn (NYC) has a carbon footprint about half of Decatur’s right now. You get a lower carbon footprint where you don’t have to drive a car. You don’t have to drive a car where you have more urban density in the city centers. You try to force trees on private commercial lots downtown and you aren’t getting more density. So why are we trying to increase our canopy again?
Much like the value in a root cause analysis, this ordinance needs a root goal analysis.
What is the end goal of this ordinance? To decrease CoD’s heat island? To better manage stormwater runoff and water quality? Lower CoD’s carbon footprint? To create a suburban feel in an urban area?
Although tree canopies do a great job of managing heat island effects and stormwater runoffs, canopies might not be the most cost effective way to achieve these goals, nor the most palatable ones to private property owners.
Any ordinance of this scope and financial impact needs as much thought and input as the CoD’s strategic plan received.
Nice analysis, Warren – thanks for the info.
Great point. This does not need to be in downtown. Commercial strip centers with their own parking lots are a different story, but there aren’t too many of those inside the city anyway.
I am “in the arena” of this development stuff, and this makes me worried about continued commercial redevelopment here.
The Tree Canopy Ordinance topic is now available on Open City Hall. I had to click on the “Home” button/link to find it because the speed limit topic is still front and center.
Help me out here. I have a tree that is in danger of falling on my neighbor’s property and have had them let me know about this many times. To save money, can I just take care of this now before the ordinance passes? What are the restrictions as of right now?
Do it while you can, because unless you’re about to build/renovate something that would require you to get a permit for that project from the City, there are no restrictions right now on property owners who simply want to remove a tree from their yard. After next week…?
Remember the is a freeze on ANY tree removal until Jan 24 (I think that is the date).
I don’t think that is correct. No trees can come down in connection with demolition or re-development of homes. You could have your yard razed this afternoon if you want as currently you are not required to obtain a permit solely to remove a tree.
My understanding is that the moratorium is for building permits that require tree removal. Unless you are in an area with a current tree ordinance (I know MAK has one, not sure if the other historic areas have one) you can cut any tree you want, no permit required. If you are currently doing a project and have an open permit, you better not try. I know of a case where the tree company was shut down even though the project was in the front yard and the tree work was in the back. If you have no open building permits and are not in a historic designated neighborhood, I think you are good to go, but you better hurry. Considering that monday is MLK day and the meeting is tuesday, good luck to ya!
Neither the tree moratorium nor the new ordinance prevent you from removing a dangerous or diseased tree.
IF, and only if, the city arborist agrees with that assessment. That is way too much power in the hands of one person, especially since we all know whoever (err, I mean the treehugger who)holds that position will have a bias against removing trees.
watch out dawgfan, you might just be backtalking the new city arborist czar
No worries. Already hired a tree company to remove the last 2 large trees on my lot, and the one boundary tree. I am exempting myself from the ordinance!
I’ve run into several Arborists who were far from treehuggers.
Mainly because they also had “ties” to a tree removal and replacement company.
Most treehuggers I know want a healthy, happy canopy not just more trees.
Looks like this ordinance goes way too far intruding on private rights and it doesn’t seem to allow for the growth of large canopy trees like my white oak that was planted over ten years ago and still isn’t 6ft around.
Did the city get any input from Trees Atlanta, a non-profit who has been very involved in planting trees around our city?
As I’ve had the current City Arborist render two divergent opinions about the same trees on the same lot within a 15 month time span, so I don’t but faith into any single arborists opinion.
I have plenty of stories of other arborists disagreeing with the City Arborist’s opinion.
What’s the dispute resolution process?
Of, wait, there isn’t one.
Here’s a what-if situation: Homeowner suspects one of their large, old trees is unhealthy and unstable, which is confirmed by a certified arborist. Recommendation is to remove it, to prevent it falling on either their house or the house next door. Both households teem with young children and pets. Cost to remove would be several thousand dollars, and it would take them below 55% canopy. With their large house and small yard, there is no reasonable site to plant a new tree without creating obvious problems with water lines, sewer lines, overhead power lines, their house foundation, etc. They decide they can’t afford to take the tree down AND pay into the tree bank. QUESTION: Who is liable when the tree falls over in a storm next summer on top of their neighbor’s house?
The way I understand it, the neighbor’s homeowners insurance would pay unless the neighbors had told the tree owners in writing that their tree was a hazard and in danger of falling on their house. At least that was what we were told when wondering about a neighbor’s tree that precariously leaned over our house.
This is correct and a fine solution outside of the potential for violent, crushing, death.
Homeowner’s policies typically have deductible amounts of several thousand dollars. Plus, there would be whatever disruption of their lives was entailed in repairing/reconstructing their house. And that’s assuming nobody got killed or maimed.
My point is this ordinance will almost certainly discourage people from taking down trees that need to come down, because it will be so expensive.
Wondering how the maintenance works for boundary trees that are located on 3 different properties and are hard to safely reach (located on slippery slopes covered by kudzu and poison ivy)
Oh and I need to make sure no falling acorns spawn new trees that I won’t be able to remove or maintain. Bring on the squirrels!
Hi Everybody:
I wrote a little stream of conscience note and am going to refine before I submit… Anyone want to give me some suggestions before I send to the Commission?
Dear Commissioner:
I am writing you to oppose the new Tree Ordinance under consideration in the City of Decatur.
Vote No to the Tree Ordinance on Jan 21, 2014.
While I am a big fan of trees and appreciate stewardship for current future generations, the Tree Ordinance as written is counterproductive, tailors to a vocal minority in our city and will ultimately hamper our ability as a community to execute on our Strategic Plan.
Allow me to lay out a couple reasons for my opposition:
• Due Process: The ordinance was recently separated from the Building moratorium and pushed rapidly at some meetings that occurred over the Holiday season (Dec 11, 13) when many residents are focused on other things. We just learned about more of the details regarding fines and payment to the tree bank today. Why the big rush to make a decision in the meeting on Jan 21? This issue has significant impact on all of our Residents, give us time to understand it.
• Arbitrary Canopy Target: The 55% canopy target is arbitrary and too high. We have the best canopy in the Atlanta Metro and clearly want to keep it that way.. The slow decline in coverage over the last 10 years can not be attributed to significant changes in single-family residential development.
• Penal: The ordinance appears to be more penal in nature vs. a constructive approach to manage development in our City. It appears to be a thinly veiled attempt to stop single family residential improvements and will ultimately result in a decline in the growth rate of our tax base. Those of us that have owned old homes in Decatur for 10+ years and/or are elderly may not have access to the additional capital required to comply with this ordinance.
• Commercial / City Owned Property: As owners of Residential property, we have limited to no control over what happens on commercial or city owned property – clearly we are not targeting those canopy goals at our schools, in Downtown government buildings, new developments such as Allen Wilson or the Rec center. If the city is working towards a 55% canopy, Single Family Residential zoned R-60 will by definition need to be more than 55%.
• Property Rights and Home Gardens: I want to have a garden at my house to grow herbs and vegetables to reduce my food bill and eat healthier. I can not afford to pay thousands of dollars to the City to give me a permit to cut down the tree.
• Implementation Plans: The Administrative Document takes time to digest and understand. The ‘Maintenance Requirements’ section seem particularly onerous and are likely to result in multiple legal actions from Residents against the city.
• Unintended Consequences: Many trees might end up diseased or poisoned (eg, Toomer’s Corner) by residents trying to find ways to avoid paying for removal permits. Similarly, many of us won’t be fully proactive addressing diseased tree issues and will likely result in more fallen trees across our streets, powerlines and on our houses.
• Misdemeanor: Is the city really going to charge me with a crime or not issue a CO if I do not maintain my trees properly? You don’t charge me with a crime based on how I maintain/decorate my home, but yet you can if I don’t maintain my trees? If it was not so scary, I would assume this is a practical joke.
This is good. Much better than mine. I got stuck after “Vote NO or I’ll vote you out!” I may have to plagiarize some of yours.
I couldn’t get past “penal”…
Does your wife have the same problem?
This is very well written. A couple items I might personally add for my letter would be:
Due Process & Tree Canopy: “…give us time to understand..” these new details and openly vet the proposal’s feasibility and necessity via specified public meetings, a certified mailing of all details with multiple examples of cost and impact to different properties, &/or a public vote.
Commercial: How has the city vetted this proposal with the surrounding business community to get their take on costs and benefits, even as a decisive factor, for continued current and potential future investment in city property, especially given the demand for and benefits of more density? East Decatur Station to the Avondale Station LCI and the DeVry Campus for example.
Property Rights: The restrictions, especially through boundary trees, would create permanently growing, involuntary easements for which we still pay taxes and receive no form of incentive.
Unintended Consequences: This will likely also cause an increase in home and commercial insurance premiums once the companies learn of the resulting increase in liability.
This might be too specific, but my 2 cents. Thanks for the awesome notes!
Can I copy your letter to the commissioners? My initial email was somewhere in between yours and JT’s 🙂
Use whatever you want, add more thoughts / objections in case mine are all way off base. And, Go Dawgs! So glad to have Grantham out of there.
The more I think about the more I come to the conclusion that this whole thing is loony tunes. Thank you, Lena, for jumping in the discussion, but when you got to the part about paying $1200 to the city to cut down a tree in my yard, on top of all the other costs, I was convinced. The good of this ordinance is far outweighed by the negative. I really hate that this ordinance assumes that type of expense will be ok for all of our citizens, or that we all think it is worth it. This type of thing is could be a real burden to the less fortunate among us, who probably haven’t been able to pay a pro landscaper to take care of the old trees surrounding their homes. We’ll see many of those trees up close this weekend at the MLK service project. Seems like an undue burden on many among us and a good reason for some in older homes to go ahead and sell out to that builder that’s been asking to buy and tear down. Has that externality been considered?
THIS, 100%!
And when it was brought up when the demo and tree removal moratoriums were originally discussed, none of the commissioners seemed to want to acknowledge this consequence, let alone address it. If you want to widen the gap between the local haves and have nots, pass laws maintaining things exactly as they are with penalties for anyone trying to improve their property. Those who have already redeveloped reap increased values immediately. Those who haven’t suddenly see their values slashed. And those who NEED to make any changes but can’t afford to will be forced to sell to developers or other rich folk who can afford to pay the penalties. Hell, developers could target poor folks who can’t afford professional landscapers and/or are too old to spread their own mulch, call the cops on them for failing to maintain their trees properly, have them fined or jailed, and then pounce when their home is foreclosed. Brilliant!
Agree. I have to believe that this was done with the best of intentions but I am afraid the people who will suffer will not be the ones originally targeted.
Builders will not be discouraged from tearing down or clearing trees. They will simply pass these costs down to purchasers. $1500 for someone buying a $700k house is easily absorbed.
The people who will be most affected are those that are doing a small renovation, even as small as building a deck or patio, who could be faced with thousands of extra dollars in costs.
For example, if you have a 1600 sq ft one story 3/2 bungalow and want to put on a 160 sq ft rear deck, that small renovation will cost you to get up to 55%, even if you don’t have to remove any trees to build the deck. If you have to plant 4 trees to get to 55%, this could easily be $2k.
I think in this legislation, the little guys will suffer unfortunately.
Thanks for this example. It really helps illustrate the problems with the ordinance as written.
Would it be wrong to ask any commissioner who votes for this ordinance to disclose what the current percentage tree canopy on their own lot is, whether they have done any construction or tree removal on their property in the past 10 years that would be covered by this ordinance, and whether they plan to do either of those in the foreseeable future?
I don’t care if it’s wrong. I still want to know.
Wasn’t there some zoning ordinance committee, group, task force, whatever for all of this?
I’d start with them and work my way up. They’d better all live in tiny houses and have lots covered completely by trees.
There was not. The Zoning Task Force handled a number of immediate clean-up discrepancies between some of our development ordinances and conflicting goals in the Strategic Plan. Those changes were adopted over a year ago.
In a nutshell, tree regulations were originally intended to be just one segment of the overall Unified Development Ordinance regulations overhaul going on now and concluding next September. However, in response to public pressure over some high profile tree removals, commissioners separated the issue from the larger project and pushed for a faster resolution. It was reactive to public pressure, as opposed to being part of a proactive effort or agenda.
Thanks for the explanation!
I would also like to ask how many commissioners and environmental board members already are living in their Decatur forever home/long term home? For those of us still hoping to either purchase or create that forever home, the ordinance as proposed is a big blow to a dream that seems more financially unattainable by the day. I’ve lived in Decatur for almost 15 years, took a big financial hit in the recession and was just having hope to move from starter home, then prices started skyrocketing and then now this far over reaching and expensive ordinance…
This is a straight-up hot MESS. Who ARE these people who can afford all of the concomitant fees & costs associated with trying to remove a dying tree (nevermind the fines, should one inadvertently run afoul of the law), for f–k’s sakes??? Will definitely be sending my Comm a strongly worded letter letting him know that this proposed ordinance is WAY overbroad in scope (goes far beyond what is necessary to accomplish preservation of current canopy while at the same time respecting property rights), arbitrary (insufficient rationale as to why 55% coveragte is now deemed the “magic” number), and would be unduly burdensome not just on lower-income folks, but middle income, too. Ridiculous!!
Also remember the costs of developing all the required drawings and plans. For a simple small deck you could be required to submit detailed drawings showing existing and proposed tree canopy – that probably means professional services, surveys, calculations and written maintenance plans. And be prepared for follow up inspections.
And let’s not forget about all the extra leaf raking! Which will actually be leaf blowing. Then those leaves will end up in the storm sewers and cause other problems….
D’accord on both counts, Chadwick. We had plans to re-do our driveway to include a turnaround, but now, we probably won’t be able to afford it b/c we still have a stand of trees that meet the size qualifications in the proposed ordinance, and some of them would need to come down. *sigh* I hate it when something is forced on me “for my own good”, but it’s really not going to be good for me (or anyone else)!!
Another unintended consequence- pedestrian safety could have been improved with your private investment in a turnaround on your property, but if tree ord in place as currently drafted, that investment and increased pedestrian safety doesn’t happen…
My spousal unit, who cringes every time I back out onto the street, would heartily agree with you!
Is it just plain laziness, or is there some other reason people think it is ok to blow leaves into the street? I blow the leaves next to the curb in front of my house back into my yard to bag with the rest of the leaves. Takes an extra 2 minutes.
All, Ms. Stevens provided this direct link to the Open City Hall topic.
http://www.peakdemocracy.com/1682
I’ve updated the post above with this link as well.
So far I don’t see a single piece of feedback that is rated any less than “Strongly Oppose.”
[edited]
You’re right. I think I also overlooked one other supporter who made no comment. Regardless, it’s heavily leaning strongly oppose and I doubt it will do a darn thing to change the already made up minds of our commissioners. I’m hoping to be surprised and proven wrong.
I feel confident that Scott Drake will not vote for this. But will he recuse himself like he did on the moratorium vote?
Without a good reason to recuse, like conflict of interest, then it’s no different than a yes vote. Fighting against it is the only position I will respect.
A conflict of interest was the reason last time. But I hear you.
Do you think that is the same guy with the same name who is on the “Environmental Sustainability Board” that is headed by the “Resource Conservation Coordinator”?
Hmm…I’m sure it is just a coincidence.
Does the agenda for the Environmental Sustainability Board’s meeting this morning look a little suspect? I’m glad it is such an independent and thoughtful body. Here’s the link: http://www.decaturga.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=4736
Wow – robust/pre-set agenda. See document properties. I guess it is not about what the people want, but what select groups and city employees want.
As I said before, it’s a done deal. I predict it will pass 3-1 with Scott Drake not voting again. He is the one commissioner that did not even respond to my email about this. Hope I am wrong but this looks very much decided. I will go to the meeting and fill out the open city hall thing, but sadly this looks more and more predetermined.
Interestingly, this ordinance, which was likely started because of all of the chopping down of trees by builders who are buying an old home and tearing it down to build a huge home, doesn’t even address that population. If we’re trying to affect the number of trees being cut down when a builder wants to level a home and remove tons of trees on the lot, then why is that scenario not addressed at all in the ordinance? It presumes that it is only current homeowners who would be cutting down trees–that population is not the issue. I’m not trying to get into a debate about infil construction or economic impact if new homes can’t be built; just pointing out that if that’s a major part of the reason for the ordinance (which I believe it to be), then why is that contingency not addressed by the ordinance?
That’s part of the reason many people are pretty angry. The original claim was to push back against developers clearing large lots, etc. This was assumed as the general focus, which no one was quick to correct; it makes it easier to get more people passively on board. On Jan. 6 the real details were released, the final revision last night, no meetings until the final vote on Jan. 21, you have a weekend to become an expert. Look at the other comments section on slide 14 of the trees presentation:
“Most important issue is close vigilant management for residential renovation and development”
They took it as justification and ran with it. At first, I thought this might have been a result of misguided good intentions, too. However, watch the Commission’s attitude during the entire presentation on Jan. 6. It makes me believe that they’re either a) pushing for a new revenue stream or b) in cahoots on a special agenda. They know they can’t get close to meeting their goals on public land; the City Manager laughs when it’s mentioned.
Either way, I believe we have a problem that’s easily fixed.
Busy day at the desk today, so I appreciate the help anyone can give to make sure I’m putting the pieces together correctly. Consider the following two parts of the proposed ordinance and my conclusion:
ONE: (Example of penalties)
Violations: Any person, firm or corporation violating or failing to comply with any of the provisions of the tree ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor,… Examples of violations
include, but are not limited to… Land disturbance or land development without a tree disturbance permit or approved tree conservation plan…
TWO: (Definition of Land Disturbance:)
Land disturbance: Any land or vegetation change including, but not limited to, clearing,
grubbing, stripping, removal of vegetation, dredging, grading, excavating, and transporting and filling of land, and that does not include construction, paving or any other installation of impervious cover
CONCLUSION:
If I simply grade part of my back yard to flatten it so I can plant a vegetable garden there and have not submitted a tree conservation plan, I could be found guilty of a misdemeanor and potentially fined up to $1,000/day?
I hope I’m not reading this correctly…
Actually, the way it’s worded, I think you could be found guilty of a misdemeanor for simply mowing your lawn or clearing some weeds without a tree disturbance permit or approved tree conservation plan.
“Removal of vegetation” is extremely vague. When I pull a weed it is technically removal of vegetation…
The time has come for Decatur to have a viable tree ordinance. It is not perfect (what is, but our personal dreams). The Commissioners need to vote YES on this one.
This one is not viable. Vote NO.
Decatur needs to pass this tree ordinance to find out what is in it!
Sorry, couldn’t help myself.
If you like your tree, you can keep it!
(Of course, if you don’t, you and your wallet are screwed.)
Just to be bipartisan about it:
Every time someone pays their life savings into the tree bank or is prohibited from building a simple deck, etc., the arborist should parachute into Decatur squate, wearing a leather jacket, beneath “Mission Accomplished” banners.
I’m with a poster in another thread on this subject: If this travesty passes, I’ll work hard to make sure this term is my City Commissioner’s last one on the Board. I agree that we need a viable tree ordinance, but this one ain’t it.
You must be trolling! Although if you aren’t, it is worth noting that the ONLY proponent of the ordinance on DM can’t provide a single justification for the terms of this ordinance.
+1
“My name is Lena Stevens and I’m the Resource Conservation Coordinator for the City of Decatur. I’ll be jumping in to answer clarifying questions as often as I can over the next few days. We know this process has happened quickly, so my goal is to help you understand this proposal in whatever way I can.”
Lena disappeared pretty quickly from this conversation. The questions continue to pile up.
I sent her a question of my own via email this morning; still waiting on a response. Even she admits in her post above that the process of passing this ordinance has been hasty;
“We know this process has happened quickly, so my goal is to help you understand this proposal in whatever way I can.”
What is the rush? Why don’t we get it right the first time? I don’t expect to be 100% satisfied with the final outcome but the current proposed ordinance is completely unreasonable.
When there are no answers, even to the most basic of questions of “What problem are we addressing?”, you should expect lots of silence.
To offer Ms. Stevens the benefit of the doubt, she might have been trying to help, but not been authorized to make comments and silenced by legal immediately. If that’s the case, I understand.
Of course, since the draft proposal hadn’t even been reviewed by legal by the meeting on Jan 6, knowing how long that can take, I wouldn’t want to comment, either…
Or, to be honest, as soon as she poked her head out of the bunker and said “I will answer questions” she was immediately buried alive under a torrent of, well, this.
I am wondering what other changes are in store for us with the UDO?
When we’ve got only 54% canopy coverage, you’ll all have sap on your hands. Won’t anyone speak for the trees?
I actually support this ordinance, but frankly I am scared to even post this message. I’m not as articulate as many regulars on DM and don’t have any fast facts or articles to legitimize my opinion. I’ll try and give my reasons for support and hope I don’t get blasted with mean comments back.
I think it’s the right thing to do for our city. Obviously, the ordinance has financial implications for everyone. But what is the cost if we do nothing? I have to assume our canopy will continue to erode over time. And that will leave our future residents without one of the reasons I love living in Decatur.
I believe a goal of increasing by 10% is reasonable, attainable, and I appreciate the city leaders for even having the conversation. (I know I know, for many of you the conversation has only recently begun.) Perhaps 10% is arbitrary, but since I am not an arborist, I will leave the suggested increase to the professionals making the proposal.
This ordinance will hopefully push the envelope in how we choose to build, as another commenter suggested. Build up instead of out. If faced with a ‘stiff’ fine, architects should become more creative to help ease the costs for a homeowner doing a renovation.
No need to be scared. I, for one, am glad someone actually attempted to articulate a justification for the ordinance. I will give you my answers:
“But what is the cost if we do nothing?” – That is a question that must be answered before enacting such a costly ordinance. Noone has even tried.
“I have to assume our canopy will continue to erode over time” – I disagree as this can be addressed other ways (i.e. with re-development regulations – not prohibitions of homeowners removing trees). I also happen to believe that most here appreciate these trees, and the canopy will ebb and flow. But, even if it does decrease, don’t we need to know by how much, what are the effects, costs, etc.? We need answers, not unsupported ideals.
“I believe a goal of increasing by 10% is reasonable” – Why? As you stated, you aren’t an arborist. What do you base this on? Further, it is actually a 22% increase of our existing canopy.
“I will leave the suggested increase to the professionals making the proposal” – OK, but shouldn’t we consult more than one arborist, especially one from Wyoming who may lack necessary local knowledge. Anyone can all hire a “professional” to support their POV. Shouldn’t we also hire one with a differing opinion.
“This ordinance will hopefully push the envelope in how we choose to build, as another commenter suggested. Build up instead of out” – Up is way more expensive than out. There are a lot of advocates of “income diversity”. This ordinance will have the opposite effect – only those with more money to renovate will be able to move here or stay. This will only hasten our transformation into Buckhead (I have heard at least two people say almost verbatim “I don’t want Decatur to turn into Buckhead”).
You need to think this through. Even if I were to concede we need a tree ordinance, you shouldn’t support this one simply because it is the first/only option.
Well I am not sure you are glad someone posted in support. You suggested the first person who did was a troll. As it has been said before, sometimes DM can get a bit dicey. I have thought this through, I simply have a different opinion than yours. Let me be the opposition to many, no problem, but let’s have legitimate discussion that leads to a win-win and constructive feedback for the commissioners, rather than a bunch of ‘hell no!’ comments.
To address a couple of points, I was told by Ed Macie we are currently at 46%. That makes this proposal a 9% increase. You are correct, 10% is arbitrary. To reiterate my other point, I’m glad they are even having the conversation. If you do not like 10% and would prefer 5%, I’ll support you if it gets us movig forward.
And I understand your point about not becoming Buckhead. I was not suggesting that building up was always better than out. It is possible to retain character and affordably expand your home (up or out), but I think it requires more creativity than money. Or perhaps we will see the same kind of pendulum swing with housing the way Americans fled from Ford Expedition sized vehicles. Where homes less than 2000 sq ft become the norm in Decatur.
I’m certain this ordinance is not perfect and frankly will be surprised if it gets passed next week. I appreciate the passionate response to this, because it should help the commissioners refine this thing. I am happy to fall in line with the majority opinion (ordinance), as long as it moves us forward.
What I do find sad is that some commenters began poking fun at those who have supported this on the Open City hall. Gosh, why would I want to go post my name in support? Debate with supporters all you want, but at least support them letting their voice be heard. Isn’t that really what would make us a great Decatur community?
46% to 55% is a 19.6% increase. Let’s at least get the damn math right before we start taxing folks and threatening them with jail time.
No, I wasn’t just talking to myself. That comment was in response to one that seems to have disappeared. Looks like DawgFan and I broke this thread.
Fixed!
I thought the comment was trollish, not the person b/c of their opinion.
And it is a 22% increase over our existing canopy. If we are at 45%, we would have to increase our canopy by approx. 22% to obtain 55% coverage. By choosing to phrase this as a 10%increase, those behind this have clearly been able to fool a few residents and make this appear much easier than it will be to obtain. Look at it this way – if you have a $45k investment that you want to become $55k, what percentage return do you need?
I strongly agree with your last point here.
It’s good to hear from somebody who supports this ordinance. Do you believe this particular ordinance is the way to go? Would there be a better, less punitive way to maintain the tree canopy? Maybe a way that would get widespread acceptance if not support? A problem in my neighborhood is that the water oaks are reaching the end of their life spans. Ideally replacement trees would already be planted. When I first moved to Decatur, 18 years ago, neighbors would discuss this but I haven’t heard anyone talk about it in a long time.
About additions:
Building up may necessitate the removal of tree canopy and expanding back may not. Plus, if I want to add a garage or add a second bathroom to a one story house, up isn’t feasible. Last year I expanded my house and added 100 sf to my kitchen, adding a third floor to my house wouldn’t have made my kitchen more functional. No trees were harmed, except some Chinese privet that had to be pruned. Plus, when you build up you have to put stairs somewhere and they can take up a lot of room in a house with small rooms.
“This ordinance will hopefully push the envelope in how we choose to build, as another commenter suggested. Build up instead of out.” — Not always the most desirable approach, from the standpoint of preserving neighborhood character and tone. A streetscape consisting of one and one-and-a-half story bungalows can be significantly disrupted by tall additions that wind up looming over their surroundings. The option to bump out into the backyard encourages people to preserve the existing proportions of their facades and front yards, which in turn preserves the character of the neighborhood.
AMEN, STG
I share your reluctance in posting here, but have decided to weigh in on this ordinance since there is so much hysterical misinformation being tossed around. i advise dipping into this site in small doses, especially if you have blood pressure issues! 🙂
As noted in the city’s tree ordinance “Common Questions” document (http://www.decaturga.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=4728):
“The University of Georgia’s Natural Resource Spatial Analysis Laboratory (NARSAL) estimates that our canopy has declined from 51% in 1990 to 47% in 2008. A recent study commissioned by City of Decatur using aerial photographs shows coverage at 45.7% in 2005 and 45.1% in 2010.”
I don’t know of any reasonable expectation that this trend would reverse itself without regulations to protect the tree canopy. The cost if we do nothing is that this trend will continue. Many posting here aren’t bothered by that. I’ve lived in the city for decades and have watched in horror — especially as the real estate market has gotten hot again — as we’ve lost one magnificent tree after another (trees that would, in many cases, live for decades longer if left undisturbed). Some oak trees can literally live for hundreds of years. (http://www.2020site.org/trees/oak-tree.html)
I’d love it if there were more encouragement for building “out instead of up,” but we already have restrictions on the amount of impervious surface allowed on each lot, because of water runoff problems. And of course, in the neighborhoods with small lot sizes (most of Decatur), this necessitates vertical construction for many homeowners who want to add on. if this tree ordinance is defeated, those restrictions will still be in place.
Hope this info helps.
Opposition to this ordinance does not necessarily indicate opposition to (or even apathy about) preserving the tree canopy.
Yes, STG. I support preserving our tree canopy. But to steal a phrase from TeeRuss on this site, this proposal is a dumpster fire. I absolutely support the idea behind this ordinance but this particular way of going about it is way off the mark. Please, commissioners, don’t do this.
I don’t even necessarily support the idea behind this proposed ordinance, but I do support your run for Mayor.
Unfortunately Decatur has many of the shorter lived water oaks, at least in the section I live in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quercus_nigra
I am with you that the cycle of decreasing our canopy should be reversed. But to require a permit for “land disturbance” which includes removing vegetation (which in my yard would probably be removal of an invasive plant species) or be fined seems excessive.
If folks had planted quercus alba a 100 years ago this probably would be less of an issue. Water oaks are useless,
You will never find an old growth water oak. They live less than 100 years on average, are weaker than a pine tree, and fall apart after 60 years in the best of conditions.
Not if you’re a squirrel….
How do you know I’m not?
Squirrels against water oaks unite!
You’ll have trouble converting the squirrels in my yard. While you’re at it, if you can unite squirrels against eating tomatoes I would greatly appreciate it.
Ill look into your trees…I can do that. I have squirrel powers.
Your tomatoes, unfortunately, ARE MINE!
Bingo! Some years ago we removed a water oak that had been planted too close to our house, presumably by the original builder in the 40s. It was dropping large limbs and we wanted it gone before any serious damage or injury occurred. Afterward, our shady yard was very sunny. Since then, the surrounding trees have filled in substantially and we are back to a shady yard again.
Please provide some examples of the “hysterical misinformation” you claim is being tossed around here. I got my information directly from the text of the proposed ordinance itself. I may be reacting hysterically, but that seems to be a completely rational reaction to me given what I read!
You know, I kinda trust how you read LAWS since you are a lawyer….
And you owe me a drink.
It’s not my fault that you refuse to come to Trackside to collect it!
Last time I went looking for you, no one knew you there… very weird
Are you real or you a tree?
There’s a difference between not knowing me and not admitting to knowing me.
Oh, yeah…. I forgot. That explains why you don’t seem to exist.
All right, you two–don’t make me pull this blog over.
1990 is totally arbitrary as a date of comparison.
In the 20’s much of the D was farm land…no trees.
400 years ago your property probably had an old growth forest on it.
Lets compare to the 70’s when there was heck of a lot more surface parking than there is now.
What a crock
The NARSAL estimates average out to 0.22% per year over 18 years, or 22 trees died/disappeared each year out of 10,000 in Decatur. The city, while trying to promote a more dire situation, showed that the canopy decreased by 0.12% per year from 2005 to 2010, or 12 trees for every 10,000. That number is already significantly declining on its own without any sort of enforcement; this is one of those cases where people are doing pretty well at judging for themselves.
The hardcore proponents of this ordinance claim that it’s all due to development. No one has addressed issues like natural mortality rate or influencing factors, like weather, pests, etc. What is the annual mortality rate for trees? I’ve seen some interesting articles. One by Casey’s Trees assumes an average of 6% mortality (and promotes a lofty 40% canopy cover).
http://caseytrees.org/programs/policyadvocacy/utc/
Another one tries to consider different growing locations, environmental influences, age, etc. in Baltimore to get a more-rounded picture. Even at it’s lowest rate (within the 30.6 – 45.7 cm diameter range, 12-18″), the rate still averages 0.5% per year and then increases to 3.3% in the next group. It’s a long read…
http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/publications/other_publishers/OCR/ne_2004nowak01.pdf
Even if trees were naturally dying at the lowest rate of 0.5% per year, if Decatur has only experienced an overall decrease in loss from 0.22% to 0.12%, then somebody must be planting a lot of trees to offset that natural occurrence. As you’ve seen in the comments, people here are. Because they want to, not because someone is forcing them to.
Also, let’s maintain perspective of how much Decatur and Atlanta have changed between 1990 and 2010. In 1990-91, the United States was in a recession with rising unemployment and the Atlanta Olympics were still 5-6 years away. Decatur did not have a thriving commercial district, whether in downtown, Oakhurst Village, or East Decatur Station. Marta Plaza had not been created and the Avondale Marta Station was the end station for the Blue line. Single-family homes needing renovation could regularly be bought for cheap, but crime was also a relevant concern. By 2008, Atlanta, Decatur, and the rest of the country were exiting one of the largest construction booms the U.S. has experienced. And during that time, density increased, while tree loss decreased. This isn’t the country; we have 3 rail stations throughout the city with competing plans surrounding us to urbanize. And we still have 45.1% cover, which leads the country for urban areas. There is no crisis.
No one is advocating burning down the town to build skyscrapers in a barren wasteland. I have nice pecan trees in my backyard that I enjoy and plan on maintaining for years to come. However, what if I need to expand to accommodate aging parents moving in? I don’t have the room now. Should I be financially penalized for trying to take care of my family?
The other thing to consider is job stability as the economy recovers. Many are happy to have jobs and be able to pay their mortgages, feed their families, etc. For many, it has been a rough few years. Why would you want to introduce something with such restrictions and a negative financial impact right now and reintroduce stress? Not everyone here is rich; we’re just trying to take care of business.
This is a great post that the Commissioners should read.
Very well said and researched Peter. Thank you! Post on the CityPeaks website please!
Wow! Good job, Peter. Good, reasonable arguments.
Can we enlist you for the rebuttal to the commissioners?
I’m happy to do what I can.
“I don’t know of any reasonable expectation that this trend would reverse itself without regulations to protect the tree canopy.”
I completely agree, but this ordinance is way too heavy handed and nowhere near enough people understand the financial and property rights issues it will bring. The right tree ordinance should be one that everyone understands thoroughly without having it rammed down their throats while distracted by holidays.
“Some oak trees can literally live for hundreds of years. ”
Yes, but not in urban environments where they can’t develop sprawling roots systems.
I’m trying to figure out what’s so magic about the tree canopy in 1990. What was the tree canopy in 1900? In 1823? What is the tree canopy in other 200 year old cities with high population density?
What is the benchmark?
Anyone else feel this ordinance is far too developer friendly? I mean developers have no problem paying $10k they pass on to buyers. In fact, the developer in the Decatur Heights controversy from last spring said as much.I feel a lot of things on Peggy Merris’ agenda are slanted against the people of Decatur and for the developers (annexation is another example). Maybe city hall needs a changing of the guard. She is pretty entrenched and only holds her self accountable to the commissioners, not the voters.
Far too developer friendly? Yes! And they won’t even have to worry about fronting the cost of the tree tax because the houses they’ll be buying will be devalued by at least that amount, likely much more. This whole thing stinks and it’s impossible not to suspect ulterior motives and possible graft. If that’s not the case, then why not take the time to let everyone do their own homework on the final draft and have a true public debate?
At this point, anything other than tabling the vote for at least a month is, at best, irresponsible and reckless. Releasing the final draft proposal today, with many provisions that were never even previously hinted at, is just an astounding insult to the idea of transparency and openness in our local government. With the MLK holiday weekend, there are only THREE business days before the vote, and that’s including today and the day of the vote. When the best we can hope for is that our local leaders are acting rashly and without seeking community input before making some very important decisions that will affect us for years into the future, there does seem to be a need for a changing of the guard.
OK, rants aside, I do have one piece of constructive advice for the commission: if you do pass this heavy handed ordinance into law, please make sure that the city’s legal defense fund is well endowed. I can assure you that there will be challenges to it, and they will have much greater teeth than the misguided attempt to block the 315 development. And don’t say I didn’t didn’t warn ya…
Interesting. I hadn’t thought about it that way, but you have a point. I have been more focused on how unfriendly it is to us plain ole homeowners who want to enjoy our yard.
This is crazy so much unknown with this. Also so much left up to interpretation. I say just cut the tree down and don’t mess with the permit. The risk is better then doing the honest thing I am sorry to say. So sad it is comming to all of this. What is next.
What is the record for most posts on a single topic?
That’d be the Family Dollar discussion a couple years back. Near 500 posts, if I recall correctly!
Dollar General!
That was an example of a DM discussion that seemed overly emotional and charged at the time but was useful for me. My first impression was that Dollar Generals were ugly, had a tacky name, and were not consistent with the quaint Oakhurst vibe, kind of like that weird variety shop on the Square doesn’t fit. But all the support that Dollar General got made me rethink it. I wasn’t familiar with Dollar Generals. Now I enjoy the real live Family Dollar (less tacky name IMHO) well enough.
My bad–and it’s not like I haven’t actually been in that very store, so doubly my bad!! :-\
I’ve changed my mind on this ordinance. I fully support it now and hope that it passes.
Don’t agree with me? Don’t worry, it will only be in effect until the next election when whoever is up for reelection is voted out and whoever remains will realize that they will be voted out next if they don’t repeal it. It’s so hard to beat incumbents around here but this might be just the way to do it!
This situation is strongly reminiscent of the debate a few years ago surrounding the proposed Oakhurst historic district. I’m sure if DM had been up and running then, there would have been multiple threads exceeding 500 comments. No intention here to rehash old battles. Rather, I’d hope there are insights to be gained in reflecting on that particular one, especially for those who were there then and are here now. Commissioners, Ms. Merriss, and interested City staff members: I’m talking to you as much as anybody!
As I recall…
A group of genuinely well-meaning and deeply committed citizens, backed by unwavering support among City staff, sought to institute measures to preserve Decatur (in that instance, all of Oakhurst in one feel swoop) from unfettered infill development. It was pretty clear at the time, as it is now, that the City needed more effective ways of regulating development so as to preserve the essential character of the built environment (specifically in residential neighborhoods) without stifling economic and social growth. Nevertheless, many residents considered the proposed remedy (the Oakhurst Historic District) too broad, too vague and/or unnecessarily heavy-handed.
Concerns were varied and the opposition coalition wound up including unexpected bedfellows. Many opposed it purely on grounds of intrusion on private property rights. Others were primarily concerned with the financial burdens it would impose, often on those residents least able to absorb extra costs. Some saw it as leaving loopholes for developers to continue creating negative impacts on neighborhoods, while forcing owner-occupants seeking to improve their properties to comply with cumbersome and expensive requirements that weren’t fully and clearly rationalized. To be clear: many of the most fervent opponents to that proposal were not categorically against preservation, but they objected to that particular approach to it.
The ensuing controversy grew very bitter and left rifts in the community that took years to heal. The breakneck pace of this process, by comparison, may work in everyone’s favor by forcing a fast decision–to adopt this or go back to the drawing board–without months of online acrimony and yard sign wars. Ramming it through next week will undermine its credibility. Going back to the drawing board will create the opportunity to craft a more fair-handed and rational approach to tree canopy preservation and also enable some deep breathing. I hope that’s what the Commission decides to do.
This is absolutely correct- I was thinking the same thing.
Nice thing about this time around is that a vocal minority can’t pretend they’re larger than they are, and full information about both sides of the issue are readily available without being filtered by the messenger.
Not missing life before the internet.
STG- I thought it wasn’t all of Oakhurst. The original proposal from just from Winter to Mead, wasn’t it? It was based on housing stock as opposed to preserving the whole community, which was part of the problem.
the proposal grew vastly from its original limited scope which had a lot of neighbor buy-in to just about all of Oakhurst AND hopped across the tracks to include a chunk of Lenox Place. That last bit really felt to many that it was an over reach. The huge growth in scope took many aback who had thought they were in no way going to be effected by some very impactful legislation.
Dear Commissioners,
The City of Decatur has a process for developing long term strategic goals. This process involves the input of hundreds/thousands of residents in community round table sessions, where we bring our varied backgrounds and perspectives together and form a community vision that guides our shared future.
NOWHERE in the 2010 Strategic Plan did the community place a priority on a 55% tree canopy. NOWHERE. We gave our city leaders clear priorities to act on, and protection of trees from ourselves did not make the list. If the city commission decides to go outside this process and put in place a tree ordinance that treats us all as subjects, then the contract between the people and our government will be broken. And that would be a shame, because we have enjoyed a highly functional relationship in this community until now.
Next, some basic perspective. Just a few months ago the City Commission was presented with a set of facts about exploding school enrollment by the school board, which had pulled together a committee of residents and education representatives to evaluate the situation and recommend a solution. The City Commissioners said that they needed more information and punted on their responsibilities to deal with this, indefinitely.
But THIS is an emergency?
And now for the larger perspective. Decatur was founded 191 years ago, in 1823. It is no longer a farm, it is not a forest, it is not a national park. It has one of the highest population densities in Georgia, which is to be expected for a city of this age. IF, and I mean IF, the next round of community Strategic Planning cites a need to conserve some level of tree canopy, I would expect that the tree canopy percentage would lean towards RATIONAL expectations of what a densely populated, 200 year old city could target. I’m not an expert, but this layman would look at Savannah or Brunswick or Milledgeville as benchmarks, and determine if Decatur is holding its own, before deciding to impose significant criminal and financial sanctions on our property owners.
Lastly, I have a lot of respect for many of our commissioners, and am sure that they will be reading DM and other community discussion forums, and will make the obvious call. The less rational ones who don’t incorporate the will of the people they represent into their decisions will not only be voted out, they will be community pariahs, and will be best off moving out. That’s as strong as I can put it – if you disregard what we say, what we’ve prioritized, what we value, then you shouldn’t be here.
Regards,
TeeRuss
Booyah!
I am more concerned about an agenda on the city manager’s side and the influence that position wields over the commissioners.
Nellie,
You and I have agreed on very little when I have periodically posted in the past and as I lurk on DM there are many of your comments and opinions differ from mine to a sometimes almost unimaginable degree.
Regarding our City Manager and her agenda, you are correct and I could not agree with you more.
See, we can all get along!
Hi Nellie, I am not familiar w Ms Merriss agenda, can you fill me in? Thanks in advance.
The annexation issue is the one that comes to mind more than anything. It keeps getting revisited, shot down and revisited; people on various committees over the years have told me they felt she is pushing annexation in ways that might be harmful to the city in the long run. A lot of people felt she pushed the Oakhurst historic district without regard to the feelings of the residents – which is why that proposal got squashed. This is not the first time an issue has been swept through very quickly
What’s the motivation?
There has been lots of speculation and not all of it is kind.
If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Very true.
However, I just can’t get past the fact that this ordinance does nothing to halt developers- except make them tack an extra $30k on a house price -and could bankrupt a senior citizen or average family.
Booyah + 1000 :Where to even begin. After studying all the supporting documents I can locate, I find the ordinance pretentious, overly- complicated, punitive and wide of the mark. Much of the same can be said, for the deliberative and legislative process pushing this mess. I join with those who will hold our elected officials politically responsible for this debacle.
You can vote on the city’s tree ordinance website so that your vote is displayed online WITHOUT using your name. That’s not clear early on in the process when it asks you to sign in. I held my breath and gave it a try and my name is not displayed. We’re a small enough town that it’s hard to voice your honest opinion when you know your wonderful next-door-neighbor, or child’s teacher, or friend’s husband feels passionately and assertively the opposite way that you do. Or you can be afraid of looking clueless!
Has anyone been able to find the referenced City of Decatur Tree Species List? The proposed ordinance states:
“City of Decatur Tree Species List
There is hereby established a City of Decatur Tree Species List that is included in the administrative standards and is hereinafter referred to as the tree species list.”
The Administrative Standards add:
“Tree Species List
The City of Decatur Tree Species List is included in Appendix A. It is referred to in the remainder of this document as the tree species list”
Where is Appendix A? I have not been able to find it. That information might be nice to know considering “tree species” is one of the main factors considered by the city arborist under the proposed ordinance when reviewing an application for removal or disturbance.
Nope, I haven’t seen one either.
The only area with anything reasonable in this proposal is the required distances from buildings, overhead and underground wires, sidewalks, driveways, etc found under site selection on page 13 of the Admin Standards. Look at the standards; in my case, with all of those factors, you wouldn’t be able to plant a tree anywhere.
My concern in that area, though, is planting trees that become boundary trees. The site selection doesn’t define anything about respecting your neighbor’s boundary. I don’t see how they could legally suggest intentionally planting a tree under those guidelines that would then affect two properties. Effectively two permanent easements and a huge, expensive mess with escrow and fighting your neighbors should you be impacted.
If you watch the video of the meeting online our esteemed Mayor is delighted by this “benefit”. An individual will be granted the right to restrict their neighbor’s future development by planting border trees. Completely absurd and irresponsible.
Horrible. Just horrible.
Not just development, but I betcha it would restrict your landscaping plans. Your new boxwood hedge would mess up the neighbor’s trees…..
I believe in what this ordinance is trying to do, but this ordinance favoring developers is not it.
I can’t believe this is even making it to a vote. Having a rope swing is a misdemeanor for crying out loud!!!
Page 12:
“Damage to be avoided within the tree protection zone shall include, but not be limited to…Attachment of ropes, wires, chains, nails, screws, advertising, posters or any other objects to tree trunks or scaffold limbs”
Page 16:
“Any person…failing to comply with any of the provisions of the tree ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor…”
This is an almost certain way for Decatur to find itself in the national news.
Tonight at 11, a Decatur GA man was cited for the criminal offense of hanging a rope swing for his 7 year old daughter.
Frankly, another example of how the “best of intentions” are often closer to pure evil.
And the people south of Memorial and east of Columbia will cry out, and email WSB and the AJC, proclaiming “that is CITY OF Decatur, not our generic, unincorporated DeKalb Decatur! We demand a retraction and an apology!”
To be fair, it says: “except that encroachment of less than 20 percent of the tree protection zone shall be allowed without an approved tree disturbance permit or tree conservation plan.” So doesn’t that mean that you could have a rope swing because it would only be disturbing less than 1% of the tree?
That’s a fair point, but I don’t believe it’s accurate. If one were to take that interpretation, then the requirement against ropes, nails, posters, wire, etc. would have no effect. I cannot imagine a scenario where one could cover more than 20 percent of the critical root zone, trunk, and crown with nails or rope.
This is really my point. The ordinance itself is poorly constructed. If we cannot convey the requirements in an ordinance that is 1-2 pages, then it’s really just too cumbersome to be effective.
A typical homeowner trying to follow the rules should not be expected to read and comprehend a 17 page document to deal with the care and maintenance of the trees on their property. Such an ordinance is very likely to have many unintended consequences because it has lost sight of its objective.
A rope swing that covers 20% of the tree is a pretty damn impressive apparatus.
Depends on how they calculate the encroachment. All swings are not created equal. Variables that could be taken into account include diameter of the limb used, ratio of limb diameter to DBH, ratio of limb diameter to trunk diameter at limb height, distance along the limb from the trunk, height from the ground, swing arc diameter, gauge of rope used (as indicator of weight to be supported by the swing), whether it’s tied to the limb at one point (tire swing) or two (wooden seat swing).
And then, some might say, only the tree is really in a position to define the extent of the encroachment. Some trees like swings, others don’t.
This tree ordinance is worse than the tax code.
Not that I’m looking to defend this ordinance in any way, but a tree protection zone only exists during some sort of land disturbance activity, i.e. construction, renovation, landscaping.
The tree protection zone won’t exist after work is complete.
Does the definition of land disturbance activity distinguish between use of heavy equipment (grader, small end loader, giant truck delivering trusses, etc.) and two guys with a pickup truck unloading lumber for a deck?
That’s the whole ‘do I need a permit for this’ dance that can’t be answered in any response short enough for me to type.
This is in reference to one short thread here in a 200+ comment section, but I will reiterate.
NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. And don’t try to resurrect a conversation surrounding an attack either.
Those who do not comply will be moderated or banned.
Did I miss all the good stuff?
Get to choppin Decatur.
I consider myself pretty liberal, but the People’s Republic of Decatur is doing its best to make the northern suburbs more appealing. Look forward to either seeing this ordinance rejected, or supporting an anti-incumbent Commission slate in subsequent elections.
Why is 55% the right number?? Why not 50%? or 45%? Or maybe 40%?
CITY OF DECATUR (population density = 4,603.6 people per square mile) – “The city’s goal is to have 55 percent of the geographic area within the city limits covered by tree canopy by 2039”.
Some of the following may be out of date (some data appears to be from 2005 or 2006) but I pulled the data from studies or web sites concerning tree canopy and urban plans to address issues with same.
City of Oakland Park, FL (4,914.7 per square mile) : – It’s plan includes increasing the tree canopy in the City to 30 percent.
Seattle, WA (6,717.0/mi²). – Their plan’s goal is to increase the overall canopy of Seattle from the current 18 percent to 30 percent in the next 30 years.
Miami, FL (12,139.5/sq mi) – It’s goal is to be at a 30 percent canopy.
Sterling Heights, MI ( 3,552.4/sq mi ) – It’s goal is to maintain 37 percent of tree canopy on any new development.
Chattanooga, TN (1,222.5/sq mi ) – The goal is increasing the tree canopy in the downtown area from the current seven percent to 15 percent, with an overall canopy goal of 40 percent Citywide.
Roanoke, VA (2,300/sq mi) – It’s goal is to achieve 40 percent canopy coverage.
Milwaukee, WI (6,214.3 per square mile). – 40% canopy coverage is the goal.
Sunnyvale, CA (6,173.9 people per square mile) – The city’s policy is to increase the overall canopy to at least 25% of total area of the City, including all public and private lands.
Portland, OR (4,375.1/sq mi) – Portland’s urban tree canopy is 29.9 percent (this is not a goal, just their measurement)
Chicago, IL: ( 12,750.3 people per square mile ) – The mitigation strategy for trees in their plan states a goal of increasing canopy cover from 14 to 17 percent.
Providence, RI (9,401.7 inhabitants per square mile) – The urban tree canopy goal is 30 percent.
Are those towns known for their trees? We in Decatur have a higher standard of treedom to maintain since Atlanta is the “city in a forest” :). I think the proposed ordinance is too heavy handed, but I don’t want to see Decatur loose much more canopy. But maybe a “plant a tree for Decatur” day each year, schools selling trees as fund raisers, scout troops planting and maintaining trees, a high school Arbor club, and other public awareness campaigns could help. Maybe homeowners get a tax break for every tree they plant.
Also my spouse pointed out that the city property across the street from our house has many tall trees with ivy growing up their trunks and that those trees would hit our house if they fall down. Will the city fine itself for not taking proper care of its trees if the ordinance passes?
I just included this list to demonstrate that as compared to many other cities 55% is unusually high. Never said it was the wrong figure to strive for but it doesn’t need to be mandated. Heck, 60% would be awesome, assuming they are healthy. No idea about what all the other cities are known for but Seattle is often referred to as “the Emerald City”. Also, Seattle and Portland aren’t exactly “unfriendly” to environmental causes and their canopy cover is significantly less than what our goal is.. Another place not hostile to environmental causes, Boulder, CO, is around 22% (2005). I agree that education, community involvement and incentivizing is the more proper way to proceed. Mandating an arbitrary % doesn’t make sense. I don’t walk around Decatur noticing an overall lack of trees. Sandy Springs is like 55% tree canopy cover, I don’t think we want to be Sandy Springs 😉 ……….well, they do have a Trader Joes, so I guess a sizeable share of Decatur does desire being similar to Sandy Springs 🙁
Be aware that much of the Northwest is more arid with less trees compared to here despite its reputation. For example, Portland is much less rainy than Seattle. And even Seattle isn’t in the true NW rainforest the way Olympia is. The ocean moderates the rain effects. And the highest altitudes have scrub rather than big, tall trees. Just saying that one has to take into account the native tree canopy pre-urbanization as well as the current canopy.
Thanks for the research Mike, please come to the meeting Tuesday and share that! The more I think about it, the more I think that this not about trees as much as it is a cynical ploy to gain more power and revenue. 55% is not a reasonable figure so you will have to pay into the tree bank. I guess they need money to pay for the fancy new building on Talley Street.
That’s from the US Conference of Mayors in 2008. For background, it was a conference of 135 “cities,” ranging from Manhattan, KS to LA, talking about trees. I saw 3 good takeaways:
1. As Mike posted, after narrowing the cities down to actual urban areas, eliminating towns in the country or sprawling outer suburban areas, the general consensus settles around 30%. Decatur falls under the urban category.
2. The common approach among these areas is to plant on public property, especially along streets, and includes working with volunteer organizations. As for private property, the majority targets new development by developers, which was the supposed original focus in Decatur. One good example comparable to Decatur would be Alexandria, VA:
The City’s Urban Forestry Master Plan (now under final review) recommends that the City plant an additional 400 trees annually to achieve recommended street tree stocking levels by the year 2020 and expand the City’s tree canopy. Page 12 of file
The Plan includes recommendations for “actions to be taken
to improve the management and maintenance of street trees and others on park, school and
other public properties, and to expand outreach and educational components that will
encourage the planting and maintenance of trees throughout the City.” Page 35 of file
It’s all about utilizing public land and encouraging private participation.
3. The cities ranked their threats to resource management:
Largest impact on these cities’ tree canopy: Serious storms are responsible for recent problems in half the survey cities, Infestations in 46%, Drought conditions in 42%, Fire in less than 1%. Other threats, such as budgetary constraints, are reported as current problems by 15%…
Correct Peter. That is where most of the data came from.
Good statistics here from Mike’s Opinion, but we may be missing some context. It is extremely difficult to grow 5% of your tree canopy. Should we wait until we are at 18-20% tree canopy before instituting protection and try to grow to 25% over 30 years? Looking at it another way we are trying to maintain our current canopy and then putting a goal to grow it 5% over 20 years. I shutter to think what this City will look like with only 20% tree canopy. The tree canopy was 50% when I moved here and is under 40% now (extrapulating from 2008). The difference in canopy is dramatic. I can’t imagine what even another 10% would look like. It is difficult to correct the loss of tree canopy. If we wait until we are at 30% in five years to fix it, it will be 10-20 years before we see any evidence of that fix.
Others have also suggested incentives. I posted this last week, but thought it worthwhile given the topic’s evolution. I’m thinking of adding this to my letter. Would you support an alternate initiative similar to this? Thoughts?
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 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 a 5 year test program that rewards good behavior via tax credits.
Any Decatur property owner, 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 credit schedule 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 desirable 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., if 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 private property rights can continue as desired, and interested participants gain personally while benefitting the larger community.
Encouraging volunteering, both on public property and private property (when requested), I believe that the community would not only lend a hand, but likely go above and beyond. Decatur could 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 while harvesting 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.
After second thought, given that we don’t currently really have a problem, this would just be a waste of more time and money that could be used for something necessary. Never mind.
I love it! Since new development seems to be the source of most tree loss, the trick would be to find an incentive valuable enough to persuade developers to work around as many trees as possible. Is that just dreaming?
Decatur operates and responds well with incentive-driven programs- think of the pay as you throw program, provision of single stream bins and skyrocketing recycling participation. We don’t have to go to the expense of giving away city money in tax breaks to provide some tree preservation incentives. It could be as simple as 1 percent extra lot coverage and/or square footage in exchange for x number of mature planting or preservation, or for preservation of a signature tree within the build able area of the lot, some more generous setback variances and/or height or lot coverage or square footage allowances. The lot coverage rules are chiefly there for storms after management- one of the big environmental benefits of tree canopy, so incentives like this should be neutral on storm water impact.
Checking the Open City Hall site, here are the numbers so far:
133 On Forum positions:
38 (28.6%) either support or strongly support the ordinance.
95 (71.4%) either oppose or strongly oppose the ordinance.
177 Off Forum positions:
I can’t find where it breaks down the results, but if we assume the same percentages as the On Forum positions, that means 51 support and 126 oppose. Thus, 221 out of a total of 310 responders oppose or strongly oppose.
The big question is, will the commissioners take note of the overwhelming majority of residents who oppose it?
One more thing…why are people outside the city voting? Are their votes even relevant? No offense to them, but they don’t have to worry about heavy-handed Decatur government interference.
Speaking of the Open City Hall site, does anyone else find it hilarious that many of the people who support the ordinance say that they do so because they want to prevent developers from clearcutting lots when that is exactly what it will NOT do?
I noticed that. How did this happen? The community clearly, or at least somewhat, coalesced around that very idea, but then we end up with a ordinance that is punitive to the average home owner and too convoluted for the average citizen to take time to really understand. The folks that are saying those things have likely not read, or understood, the 17 page document and whoever wrote the thing clearly missed the mark of what the community wanted. I’m not saying that to be mean – it’s very clear, based on the feedback they’ve gotten, that it’s what has happened.
Not only that, the ORDINANCE FAVORS DEVELOPERS OVER HOMEOWNERS. Developers are causing loss of the canopy because they want to build bigger houses and make bigger profits (I know developers say this is what people want, but I don’t buy it. MY 1910 house is about 500 sqft smaller than a lot of these so called McMasions and friends who live in those new builds often tell me that my house- with fewer, bigger rooms – is what they wanted but they had no choice based on what housing stock is out there.).
not hilarious, but slightly disturbing.
I regret to report that, having sent emails my three commissioners before 7 am on Thursday, I’ve received nary a “thanks for letting me know how you feel” from any of them.
That’s not good (and a departure from what I experienced over 15 years living in Decatur). It’s not so difficult to set up a boilerplate “thanks for your interest, I’ll take it under advisement message.” I wrote to all 15 Atlanta City Council members last week and got that much (standard thanks) from three so far.
It is actually much more common now not hear a peep, especially since Mary Alice retired. You also had the advantage of being well known through your volunteer work.
Drake replied to my email.. Nothing yet from Boykin or Baskett
Happy to report that Drake responded to my email too, no work from Boykin yet.
My family doesn’t have a dog in this fight anymore (we moved out of Decatur a little over a year ago) but our dealings with the City when we tried to expand our house should have provided some foreshadowing.
While we found the Zoning Office quite easy to deal with, we ran into many problems gaining approval for our tree plan. We had requested to take down a mature oak that that risided outside of the “buildable” area of the lot, however, was close enough that the critical roots were going to be damaged during the renovation.
Despite best efforts to propose that we replace the tree (at our cost) in a location of the City’s choosing, we were never able to overcome the tree consultant’s insistence that the tree remain.
Had the root system incurred damaged, evidence of the tree’s health wouldn’t have shown for several months – at which point, it was cost-prohibitive to take the tree down. That, of course, does not include the cost & damage to landscaping & existing retaining walls (built when we first moved in to address erosion and water runoff management), heavy equipment and the probable damage to our driveway.
Like a few on this discussion board have commented, we also had a hard time understanding how the City’s consultant could make such firm recommendations but carry none of the liability if his assertions or predictions to the tree’s chances of survival were wrong. With responsibility should come the accountability.
In hindsight, not renovating to accommodate our expanding family and moving out of Decatur may have ended up being a blessing for us. It saddens me to see that this may result in a missed opportunity to further educate an already-willing community and parlay that into broader organized activism that achieves a positive outcome for everyone.
Alas, poor Decatur. I hardly know thee.
I don’t live in the city limits but my area is under threat of annexation. This sort of taking by ordinance is exactly why I do not want to be in a micro-managed city like Decatur.
This tree ordinance essentially says the city owns your trees. You pay your taxes, you do the upkeep, you hire the landscapers and arborists to keep them healthy, but the trees do not actually belong to you.
If you cut down the city’s property(on your own land), the city gets paid and paid handsomely. It’s all profit and no responsibility for the city.
AMB and others may not be aware that DeKalb County’s Tree Protection Ordinance is much stronger than Decatur’s existing Tree Protection Ordinance.
Some helpful links in case you wish to cut down any tree on your property.
http://www.co.dekalb.ga.us/greenfocus/ordinances/tree_protection_ordinance.pdf
I hear it works pretty well. Maybe we should adopt a similar one in Decatur.
Did you read the ordinance you linked to? It exempts taking out up to 5 trees per year, which would protect the concerns of may of the home owners that have posted here. I sure most folks would approve of something much more protective than that. The proposed COD ordinance is just way to unreasonable; penalizing the small guy and not addressing the real issue.