Tree Ordinance Topics Dominate Agenda of Tuesday Decatur Commission Meeting and Work Session
Decatur Metro | January 20, 2014The agenda for this Tuesday’s Decatur City Commission meeting is now posted on the city’s website and includes a few items related to the much discussed tree ordinance.
- A 6pm Work Session of the “Tree Canopy Conservation Ordinance”
- Action Item to vote on the Tree Ordinance
- Action Item that amends the “the Pay and Classification plan to establish the class of Landscape Infrastructure Coordinator.”
As of Monday morning, the city’s Open City Hall showed the following breakdown of “on forum” support/opposition to the question “Do you support the adoption of the tree canopy ordinance?”…
Also on the Commission’s agenda for tomorrow night’s 7:30p meeting…
- Vote on changing the land use designation request from the Decatur Housing Authority of the Gateway Manor Apartments at 421 West Trinity Place from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use
- “…approval of a residential use in a commercial zoning district and exceptions from the Special Pedestrian Area and HDSF regulations for the property at 506 East Howard Avenue”.
- A $365,000 change order for Beacon Hill to purchase and install audio visual equipment. Funds are available in the project budget, according to a note from Deputy City Manager Hugh Saxon.
I hope that “Work Session of the ‘Tree Canopy Conservation Ordinance’ ” doesn’t really mean “Ignore the large, vocal majority who oppose or strongly oppose this ridiculous, overreaching, developer-friendly sham of a ‘conservation ordinance'”, but I fear that it does. I don’t know if I will be able to make it tomorrow but I do hope that enough people who oppose this ordinance and its inevitable consequences for middle class homeowners in the city will turn out to show the commission exactly who they will be harming if they pass it.
Oppose/Strongly Oppose: 184 – 78.0%
Support/Strongly Support: 50 – 21.2%
Neutral: 2 – 0.8%
Total: 236
74% of those voting oppose the Tree Ordinance. I hope this sends the message to the Commissioners. I love the tree canopy in my yard. I’m way over 55%. However, I also have a few 75 foot+ pines that I need to take down and at least one oak that needs major trimming. The whole idea of going through all that red tape to cut down and trim trees in my own yard makes my blood boil. In general, I love the fairly involved government we have in Decatur. I know that we have had too much clear cutting to put up new jumbo infill houses. I’m in favor of some limitations, but this has gotten out of hand! They better vote this stupidity down or I’m going to do everything I can to get these people out of office next time around. Make it 55% on city property and give home owners some more leeway. You should be able to cut down any tree under 18 inches and trim trees as you see fit on your property without having to go through permits and red tape. On top of that, different species have different worth. Most pines can be cut down with little long term impact to the canopy. Hard wood, climax forest trees are what we should be saving. The 100 year old oaks and such. This broad brush punish everybody approach is ridiculous.
+1
Thank you for the continued coverage of this. These numbers are nice to see, they clearly show that of the voting participants are not in favor of this new piece of governmental control. When you add up the Oppose and Strongly Opposed you get in the area of 74% who do not want this to happen. I would have to believe if more people were aware of this that number would be higher. I hope that the voice of reason will prevail.
A vote in favor almost guarantees litigation over the issue of Government and an owner’s property rights. I certainly am not in favor of my tax dollars funding protracted litigation. I hope they use any time to work out a new policy that is acceptable to all.
Agreed. Except for the “almost” part.
Based upon the comments so far, I agree with you exception and strike my “almost.”
I would love to hear the rationale for the “neutral” vote. How can you be neutral? Either you respect property rights or your intense love of trees prevents rational thought. Where is the middle ground?
Nice job sneaking an insult into your stated curiosity. The conversation is heated enough without these sorts of jabs. Of course, you could always go read the neutral rationale if you’re interested.
Go on, DM – what’s your position?
My position is always that the conversation on here should always remain as civil as possible. Do you disagree?
I meant your position on the actual ordinance and the procedures the city has followed. But you knew that…
Of course I agree with you on civil conversation!
Re Neutral position: Not my vote but my guess is that one partner votes one way and the other votes the other. +1 + (-1) = 0.
Seriously, I think that it could represent folks who like the idea of an ordinance but not certain aspects of this one. Since that wasn’t a multiple choice option, they opted for neutral.
Does anyone know if the Tree Species List (Appendix A) has been published yet?
When you read through some of the comments, it appears at least a few of the “Strongly Support” and “Support” would prefer more discussion on the issue and/or revisions to the proposed ordinance. Hopefully someone at City Hall is actually reading through the content, not just looking at the tallies.
After reading the ordinance, can someone please share the individual, individuals, or entity who actually wrote the document?
I’ll reiterate what I’ve said in another thread: I absolutely am in favor of having some protection for trees, but this ordinance is such a huge overreach that I can’t be for it. If the Commissioners pass it in its current form, I’ll keep my word to campaign for anyone who runs against them in future City elections. That being said, I echo DM’s concerns about people taking jabs at those who have a different position. I would hope we could remember that we’re neighbors, and at the end of the day, we’re all in this thing together. Thankfully, most of the folks sounding off on this topic have managed to keep their opinions from veering over into personal attacks, but there have been some comments that were uncalled-for. I’m angry about the proposed Ordinance, but not to the extent that I think it’s OK to make someone a pariah in our community for having the opposite view. Decatur, we’re better than this–don’t forget it!!
Is everyone commenting planning to attend Tuesday’s meeting? No snark intended…just asking. My spouse and I are going to skip our child’s school event to be there. Does anyone know if there will be local news coverage? If so, I will wear a nice shirt.
I plan to attend.
I plan to be there but probably can’t get there early so I’m guessing there’s a good chance I won’t even be able to get into the building. I just hope that enough people who oppose this ordinance, or who at least realize that voting on it tomorrow without proper time for public input on the final draft version, would be a travesty of governance, will get there early and raise their voice against the very small vocal minority who are trying to rush this through before the public at-large realizes what they’ve done.
I’m travelling on business and cannot attend. I’m looking forward to viewing it online, though.
Does anyone know if Commission work sessions are typically open to the public as well? I’ll call the City to ask tomorrow when they are back open, but thought I’d ask here too.
Yes, they are open to the public.
Yes, they are open, but public comment is generally not allowed – that’s reserved for the Commission meeting itself.
Thanks. During the work session, I hope to get a sense of what the Commissioners are thinking prior to the actual meeting.
My spouse and I plan to attend the meeting. I am missing a business organization meeting and book club to attend. I also plan to bring at least one neighbor who doesn’t drive and who had no idea about any of this. I will also be at the work session.
I love the comment on the City site where the person said we must protect and increase our tree canopy (and tax/penalize homeowners, etc.) because of global warming. Perfect rationale for a 2 square mile city.
Instant classic.
Hey now, we are FOUR square miles, are we not? Though it’s true that the ordinance would really only apply to the half of the city that people actually live in while exempting the public lands at our expense
Let’s assume that this proposed Tree Ordinance had always been in place. Is there a single home in Decatur that would not have had to pay enormous fines for tree removal or lack of canopy?
I am sure most of the homes with large canopies today that were built in the 1920’s, 30’s, 50’s,etc, were built on clear-cut lots. Especially those built on in the R60 district.
Yet today we have a tree canopy, and did not even have a program to incentivize planting.
Maybe if we give tax breaks per planted tree, that might make everyone happy.
HEY COMMISIONERS: Look not just at the total numbers, which are already overwhelmingly in opposition to this ordinance, but also to the trend. As more people find out about it and check in to comment, the percentage of those opposed or strongly opposed to it relative to those who support it keeps growing. And please read the comments as well. The opposition has well thought out, well reasoned bases for their positions whereas a large number of supporters of the ordinance are leaving comments that can be paraphrased as “we need tree conservation and we need it mainly to prevent developers from clearcutting”, which this ordinance does not do!
Whether the ordinance passes or not, the very act of voting on it with such little time for public consideration is an abdication of your responsibility to the community. The great majority of your constituents, whether they support tree conservation programs in general or not, are saying “Whoa, guys, let’s slow down, take a step back and, if we can even agree that there’s a problem to be solved, let’s find the RIGHT solution, which this clearly is not!”
Please, please, please do the right thing. I really do not want to have to lead a recall effort or run for one of your positions…
When looking at the comments more closely, it seems like the “support” crowd falls into one of two categories: (1) Those who haven’t read the ordinance. Several of the commenters want to to “stick it” to developers, and since someone told them this ordinance does that, they voted “support”. (2) Those who would support any tree protection ordinance. Many of the comments talk only about the need to protect the canopy, but never mention any specifics of this ordinance. While we may disagree on whether government intervention is required to protect the tree canopy (I, for one, think we are doing just fine w/o an ordinance as 45% which is much higher than most), many of the “oppose” or even “strongly oppose” commenters also believe the canopy should be protected, but don’t think this particular proposed ordinance is the way to go. A subset of this category is those who “support” this ordinance although they list several concerns and flaws, and a couple even say “I wouldn’t pass it as-is. X or Y needs to be changed. But, it is a good start”. So, if you don’t think it should pass as-is, why do you “support” it when in fact you oppose it as drafted. J_T, you are right about the well reasoned responses by the “oppose” crowd.
Come on J_T, the commissioners can’t disappoint the Environmental Sustainability Board whose members have pushed this ordinance and been a driving force behind it.
I am absolutely enraged by this. I can’t believe our property rights can potentially be taken away so easily, nor can I believe that a handful of anti-development activists can alter the course of development in the city.
This legislation shows an utter lack of trust or respect for Decatur residents, most of whom are very eco-minded and tree friendly. It is instead incredibly punitive for an arbitrary goal that has not been chosen by the community.
We have 45% tree canopy, a high number without any regulation. If it declines slightly it is just because we are getting fully built up. I am willing to bet the non-profit and publicly owned part of the city is what is lowering the overall average.
The new McMansions are severely limited in size by lot coverage restrictions already relative to elsewhere in metro Atlanta. There are a number of new or substantially modified homes in Winnona Park, and they are all tasteful and in keeping with the neighborhood.
There is absolutely no scientific basis in the stated goals.
All of this without a City election to make such a huge change. I’m sorry, but “community involvement” of hosting a meeting with a handful of people is not the way thing should be run. We have voting in a democracy, not meetings where whomever is the most screechy wins.
Is there a way we can organize opposition? I will gladly donate my time and money to whomever can organize opposition to the ordinance or to oppose any elected official who supports this.
Also, I am a liberal and have been a member of the Sierra Club for a long time. This makes me want to throw my liberal card in the recycling bin.
This entire ordinance reeks of litigation, money-grubbing, infighting and heartache–bringing out the worst in all of us and dividing the community. How infuriating and incredibly sad. There has to be a better way. C’mon Decatur, let’s do the right thing!
In spite of the cute survey in the post, I am proud of our City Commissioners that they have listened to the people during the 2010 Strategic Planning that focusing on environmental issues is of utmost priority. What many on this post do not realize is that subsequent to the planning and very recently, a petition was signed by 200 citizens emphasizing the need for our City Commissioners to follow through on the Strategic Plan and pass a protective ordinance. There will be noise and certainly not a consensus when this vote is passed. But, I am grateful that we have a Commission that is looking 10+ years down the road towards where we want to be…and not be swayed by the conveniences of today.
You are in the minority.
If you are Greg Coleson and part of the ESB (Environmental Sustainability Board) that spearheaded this ordinance, I feel you should disclose that. If you are not, I apologize. I respect aliases among private citizens on this board, but if you are in a public position of power, that just seems plain wrong to me.
Same goes to SteveP, but he isn’t commenting one way or another on this issue.
Or he may just have a hard time remembering how to change his alias and avatar. I have only done it once because I never can remember how to do it.
I hope you are correct.
This IS Greg Coleson, based on my 5 minutes of Internet research and it pisses me the hell off. If I am somehow wrong, I will apologize under my real name but I am 99.9‰ sure that I am not. Just damn.
For clarification, my name is Greg Comrie and I am the other Greg C. Greg Coleson is on the Board and is a highly respected member of our City.
If this is true, then Greg Coleson, I apologize. However, the Open City Hall posting under your own name still pisses me off. I’m afraid this city has lost its soul.
ok Jeff Lell, sorry to scare ya
Greg Comrie, thanks for the clarification, I was not feeling so good before. Glad you are someone else. Apology to Greg Coleson for assuming that was him. He did sign his real name to the open city hall response.
Yup. I apologize. I’m still pissed the hell off.
Also, Greg, you know where to find me. I am not anonymous, and I am pissed. Let’s talk if you really think this is a good thing.
I find it amazing that you would dismiss a summary of responses by Decatur residents solicited by the city as “cute,” and then in the next sentence offer up a petition signed by 200 people as evidence of support for this ordinance. If someone started a petition in opposition to the tree ordinance, what number of signatures would be required to impress you?
As the “cute” survey now has more participants than the petition, what does that make the petition? Adorable? Extremely cute?
“In spite of the cute survey in the post”
“was signed by 200 citizens emphasizing the need for our City Commissioners to follow through on the Strategic Plan and pass a protective ordinance”
I see, the open city hall survey that shows nearly 200 citizens opposing the ordinance is “cute”, but the 200 emphasizing petitioners are somehow serious.
If you took the time to read all the “cute” responses in the survey, you’d realize that most of them, including mine, feel that a new tree ordinance is required, and would be a good thing. Just not this one.
So what happened? (I was at my own n’hood mtg & couldn’t tune in.)
Oh, never mind. I just realized the meeting is tomorrow night.
Thank you for the information Greg Comrie. I had no idea that the signatures of 200 individuals could result in the economic effects on the city of Decatur residents. 200 signatures as the benchmark. Duly noted.
…also assuming that the signatures were not in support of the current proposed Tree Ordinance which arrived late last week.
Exactly. What Mr. Comrie is saying is that people signed a petition for a protective ordinance. But they could not have known when they signed that it would look like this one.
See you all at the meeting tonight. Please leave your pitchforks and torches at home.
All, I am sorry this trail has gotten so snarky. I worry the focus on one upping detracts from the focus on solving the issues and listening to and addressing concerns. Regardless of the outcome of Tuesday’s commission meeting, I am hopeful we can find a way forward.
Full disclosure, I am an ESB member, married to Greg Comrie and a friend of Greg Coleson (I also think Mezcalitos has the best margs and fish tacos in town and that Hola was just ho hum, but I digress and no doubt have pissed of legions of Taqueria fans).
A key tenant of the 2010 Strategic Plan is to protect and enhance the City’s Tree Canopy. 1,500 residents actively participated in developing this plan and its contents. The subsequent Environmental Sustainability plan, adopted in June of 2012, also has a goal around protecting and enhancing our trees. Given their significant input, I think our residents have made it clear trees are important.
So, I hope this debate is around how best to do this, not if.
In a city where the majority of the land is residential, we cannot achieve the goal as stated in these adopted plans without having some portions of the ordinance apply to residential property. If you can agree with that then let the Commission know (via email, by coming to the meeting, by providing comments on Open City Hall, which I believe is open until noon today/Tuesday) what you have issues with in the current draft and your ideas for addressing. Personally I feel this is better than just outright opposing as it leaves the Commission in a position of guessing what may or may not be important.
Also toclarify some things noted in the posts above. The petition presented at the Aug 19 Commission meeting had 700 signatures not 200, so it can be argued this was a sizable group. Signers indicated they felt that the current ordinance did not do enough to protect the City’s trees. Catherine Fox (who gave me this figure today so sorry Husband Greg C but I was clearly recalling a figure from early on in the petition signature gathering process when I shared the 200 + number) was a key driver of the petition as a result of clear cutting and boundary tree impact she saw happening in her neighborhood. In part due to this overwhelming citizen concern, the Commission asked to fast track the ordinance update while also instituting the temporary tree removal moratorium which expires later this month. I won’t go into the process/timeline that gets us from this point to where we are today bc it is late and this post is too long as it is, plus you can read about it by looking at the City Comission meeting materials for the Jan 6th working session on the http://www.DecaturNext.com website. There is a PPT that walks you through.
However, please read the updated draft if you have not yet done so and let us know via official channels noted what you are concerned about and what you would change. I will say it again, let this be a discussion about how and not if.
Tiffany
Thank you for the additional information, Tiffany.I appreciate that you have identified yourself and explained your relationship to the issue. I believe that a look at the survey comments (as well as those posted here) gives you what you’ve asked for here. If you consider the Open City Hall survey an official channel, it seems to me that a number of those opposed have enumerated specific concerns and suggestions. I think several of us who are opposed to this particular ordinance as it is written have also clearly stated that we are “pro tree” for lack of a better descriptor. A conversation about how to go about tree conservation (rather than “if”) is welcome. I, too, believe that this particular ordinance is entirely slanted as to favor developers. So, as others have pointed out, it does not address the problem of clear-cutting by developers at all.
Tiffany, was the petition you are referring to the one done through the Move on. Org platform? If so, I am certain that a large percentage of those were not residents or property owners in the city. I am afraid that the ordinance as written is so off-base that it would need to be scrapped not tweaked.
Since you’re so convinced of this mandate, let’s make sure everybody has read the current proposed ordinance (not some vaguely worded ‘save the trees’ petition from Aug) and put it to a citywide referendum.
You might also want to tell your husband not to start the snark with dismissive comments. And yes, I do believe that a good portion of the “700 signatures” on the fabled petition were from outside of Decatur. Why is no one from these boards or the city addressing the issues people keep bringing up? What is the disincentive for developers? Where did the 55% come from? Why does this penalize homeowners rather than developers, who are the REAL problem? Why are we considering an ordinance that will further drive up housing prices and create a bigger class divide? This ordinance is a bizarre Frankenstein of hippie white privilege and corporatism.
Is the open city hall poll an official channel or a cute survey?
‘ been reading over the proposed ordinance. To me, it seems written with the singular purpose of utterly destroying any chance that a tree ordinance will ever be proposed again in Decatur. That’s a shame because we really could use something to preserve this unique and valuable amenity.
We don’t need an ordinance. Period. Enhancement of the tree canopy should be entirely voluntary. We have lots of trees and no ordinance, probably higher than the arbitrary 55% in residential areas. My guess based on aerial footage. Also, any vegetation prevents runoff.
Don’t assume “enhance our tree canopy” means tree ordinance. Maybe it simply means help with additional plantings or (optional) advice. Property owners should be able to determine the best and their desired use of their property, particularly when something could potentially cause harm to them or their property.
Remember, large trees can be dangerous to both property and people. I remember a young father lost his life when a large tree fell on his house in the Westchester area around 10 years ago, and remember the case of Tripp Halstead, the young boy in Winder who was gravely injured by a falling limb.
Water Oaks, huge and common here, also begin to degrade by the time they are 50 years old, dropping large limbs or beginning to fail. They are also prohibitively expensive to remove.
We really need a city-wide vote on this for “input”, not a series of community meetings for “input.” This really should be passed by the majority of voters, not the majority of activists.
I think you are in the minority on this one. There needs to be an ordinance. Just not this.
Ok, what is your justification for the need for an ordinance? Can you be specific about certain areas? Can you site specific places where the lack of an ordinance failed the community?
We have a good tree canopy without one as we have developed. I don’t see how trees are endangered so much so we need to take rights away from property owners and add to our government burden.
As others have pointed out, trees were cut down as neighborhoods were developed – every place where houses are present. However, homeowners plant trees and these grow over time. Then they are replaced at the discretion of the property owner.
Take a look at the Medlock Park aerial from the 50’s on this site. Then look at Google maps at the same area. I would say it is a radical increase in tree cover from then to today over Medlock Park, no ordinance present or necessary.
Developers can clear cut old growth trees, damaging the canopy. It is happening all over the place. People have zero incentive to preserve old growth and replant. This community is dedicated to the preservation of its trees. Equally encoded in our rights is not just the right to individual self determination but also a preservation of the common good. Decatur as a whole as this conversation has shown wants a tree canopy as part of the common good. This tree ordinance is not it.
I’m sorry, I don’t see where developers are clearing old growth trees. You also didn’t tell me where this was happening. A vague “all over the place” is still not specific. Decatur is mostly built out, but some trees need to be removed to make way for some development, particularly where areas had insufficient density leading to under-utilization of the space.
People who like trees have a natural incentive to plant them. They are also expensive to remove, creating a natural barrier to keep them. However, property owners should be the ones to make this determination, not a City employee.
In what space is the right to self determination in all of this? This is being taken away and that is the problem. We need to trust residents to do the right thing, and based on the number of trees we have, they do already.
If the community is dedicated to the preservation of trees, we need to have a City-wide vote. When this came up in 2008 it was rejected.
Why don’t we spend money on actually developing parkland instead of creating more bureaucracy?
Below is an email I sent to each commissioner as soon as the final results of the Open City Hall forum poll were available. I encourage anyone else who is concerned about either the content of the ordinance or the process by which it is being railroaded through to make their concerns heard NOW.
Dear Commissioners,
My wife and I are City of Decatur residents. Although we have both lived in or near the city for the past 20 years, we were finally able to buy our dream house here three years ago. Actually, it is our dream lot, with a house that will need extensive renovation and some expansion to meet our future needs as our family expands and as we also face the possibility of having one or both sets of parents need to live with. From this perspective, the proposed tree conservation ordinance is a slap in the face to us, homeowners of moderate wealth who will be forced to bear the burden of penalties and fees for simply having the nerve to want to renovate our house in the way that so many of our neighbors have already done. Further, the fact that such fees will not deter developers from continuing to clearcut lots, since they can just pass on those costs to more wealthy home buyers, makes it clear that anyone who votes to enact this ordinance cares not one bit about the residents who can least afford to bear these costs.
Personally, I don’t think there is a problem to be solved in the first place. I don’t think our tree canopy is facing the danger of erosion that the alarmists claim. Even if it is, a further reduction of 10-15% would still leave us with plenty of canopy for the semi-urban area that we occupy. But even if we assume that there is a real need to preserve or increase the canopy, it is absolutely shameful to place this burden on existing homeowners. Tax the builders. Incentivize tree plantings. Kill the proposal to hire a full time arborist and put that money instead to planting trees on public property and private right-of-ways. There are many of ways to go about reaching this goal that are much more fair and progressive than what is currently proposed.
But enough about me. I trust that you have all reviewed the poll results and comments on the Open City Hall site. Since the official City of Decatur website promotes this forum, I trust that it is the primary way for your constituents to make their voices heard, short of directly contacting you. And make their voices heard the people did! With only FIVE days provided to comment, THREE of which comprised the MLK holiday weekend, 236 people responded on forum (and an additional 328 responded off forum) and the final tally was SEVENTY EIGHT PERCENT either opposed or strongly opposed. In fact, the total opposed would be higher if some of the people who voted to support the ordinance had actually read it. If you read the comments, many of the supporters of the ordinance justified their position based on opposition to developers clearcutting lots, something this ordinance will not do!
Any vote on this ordinance will be a travesty of governance. You have not provided sufficient time for the public to learn about and review the final draft, which contains several draconian provisions that were never even hinted at publicly before the release. To provide only five days to review this overreaching and burdensome ordinance which will severely impact existing homeowners is a complete abdication of your responsibility to govern responsibly and transparently. Moreover, any vote in favor of the ordinance given this timetable, in addition to the overwhelming outcry against it, would be an outrage. Thus, I propose that any commissioner who votes in favor of this ordinance publicly disclose two pieces of information while doing so:
1. Whether you have read the Open City Hall forum comments about the tree conservation ordinance.
2. Whether any property you own in the city has had any trees removed or undergone any renovations in the past 10 years that would have been subject to the penal provisions of the proposed ordinance.
I thank you for your time spent reading this email and I hope that you will address my concerns before proceeding to vote on this ordinance.
Anyone want to lay odds on whether I get a response from any of them?
Fred is pretty good about sending boilerplate “Thanks for your input. I will take it under advisement” replies, so I would bet you get at least one response.
And well said BTW. I would change only one thing. Instead of asking them not to vote, I would demand a “No” vote. If this thing survives tonight, even if tabled, I will take that as a pretty strong indication that at least a couple of the commissioners support it. There should be no attempt to revise this ordinance – it should die tonight. If they want a tree ordinance, they need to go back to the drawing board and reconsider how to address the “problem”. The basic concept behind this ordinance is so inherently flawed, I am still in disbelief it is up for consideration.
Yesterday I was in Oakhurst working with the King Day Service Project doing yard work. It was our second consecutive year in the same yard. I couldn’t help but notice that two large trees had blown down during the preceding year. One of them, a huge water oak, was a potential killer had it fallen 30 degrees or so to the right. Anyway this got me to wondering about what percentage of our “canopy loss” is due to natural causes vs man-made. I’m guessing it is sizable and the current ordinance on the table does nothing to address this. The other thing I thought about is why is it the King Day volunteers are going to the same house two years in a row? So … how about adding tree planting to the King Service Project? We could team up with Trees Atlanta who I bet would be all over it. The Project attracts tons of volunteers, many of whom are not particulary skilled, but could dig holes for trees. We could plant trees on lots of deserving citizens who want them plus on public property. I bet we could do a big chunk of canopy enhancement over the MLK long weekend. I personally think we can plant our way out of this so-called crisis. We need to replace these aging trees anyway.
It’s one of the major issues people like to ignore. Like it or not, urban trees only live 75-100 years.
Oakhurst was farmland when most of the current canopy was planted, and it’s EOL time for most of the trees.
We need to focus on what species thrive in an urban environment and aggressively plant those.
I wish the vote tally of those who did not want to be identified by name on Open City Hall was available, even if a separate tally from those who self-identified. I wonder how many of those who wanted to maintain their privacy realized their vote would not be shown in the public tally/chart?
Do you mean off forum vs. on forum?
Also, for those well-versed using this platform, what happens to the off forum comments, e.g. are they discarded, does the city still consider them and they’re simply not viewable online? I tried looking this up on the open town hall website, but didn’t see anything about it.
The off-forum results should not be used – there are no protections preventing one person from voting numerous times. Not to mention, anyone on earth can participate in the off-forum section. Thus, they are quite invalid. I would assume the city realizes this.
that is fine if the City doesn’t want to validate the-off forum responses, in particular vis-a-vis the on forum responses. However, I don’t think that is clear when the choice is given to self-identify or not.
Off-forum means you declined to sign in. Those votes and comments are tallied and presented separately. On-forum means you signed in and then chose to have your name displayed or not.
You didn’t have to identify yourself to vote ON forum! All you had to do was give your email address to the City so they knew you weren’t voting but once. You could then choose to use your name or not. If not, you were displayed “No Name”. I tried to make that point early in the voting but the sequence of screens made it seem like you might have to display your real name so some folks probably went right to OFF forum without finding out that they could vote anonymously ON forum.
exactly
If this is really about the tree canopy, then why did SO MANY of the responses in support of the ordinance refer to “McMansions”? Something tells me this has very little to do with trees, in realty.
AHID, STG: I still don’t understand fully how you become off forum. This is my first time using this system and my understanding was: I go to the open hall. I create a profile to post on the forum (probably to validate that I should be allowed to speak and for follow-up purposes). I elect an opinion (yay, nay, etc.), write something if I feel like it, and choose whether I want my name shown or not. Click submit and it’s posted.
I figured off forum meant that people hadn’t finished submitting their votes, opinions, etc. Therefore, my questions are: do you have to create a unique login to post a comment (which I would assume would be placed ON forum)? If not, does off forum mean people could post multiple duplicates. Does off forum count and, if so, why the difference?
What am I not seeing? And do not respond the forest for the trees…
The site indicates the 328 “Off Forum” responses include:
317 “Unclaimed” = author did not sign in immediately before or after submitting position
11 “Unverified” = author has not completed their registration with Peak Democracy
0 “Uncivil” = claimed and verified, but author has not complied with request to comply with civility guidelines
My understanding is that you have to register if you want your vote to count “On Forum” so they can ensure you only vote once. Your choice whether or not to display your name, and whether or not to include a comment. (I have not used the site in a long time. I moved out of Decatur last summer.) We can’t see any of the “Off Forum” feedback. It would be most interesting to know whether or not staff and Commissioners can.
I’m willing to bet the City does not have a clear or rigorous protocol about how they use any of the feedback. I can tell you what gets the Commission’s attention and keeps it–more than 5-6 people showing up with the same thing on their minds. The meeting room filled to overflowing really rocks their world.
Well I decided to pour myself a whisky (ok, maybe 2 or 3) and watch the public comment on streaming video. It just wrapped up. It looked like a packed house to me. There were some excellent points made in opposition to the ordinance (Mr. B in particular, nice job), but that’s not what most caught my attention. It was the proponents who seemed to recognize that this is a bad ordinance, but urged its passage anyway, apparently in the belief that it will be “fixed” on an ongoing basis. If those folks wanted to destroy confidence in government, they could hardly have done better.
+100
I had to leave early. Did they take a vote?