I appreciate Mayor Baskett’s service to our community. Mayor Baskett was the lone vote for the recent version of the tree ordinance. One topic the city has not addressed is the effect of the ordinance on homeowner gentrification. Some may advocate for a homogeneous population of homeowners, lacking socioeconomic diversity. I do not support this perspective.
An area of high income doesn’t rule out divesity, but doesn’t foster it either. If only the wealthy can afford new housing stock, only the wealthy will live here. Take a look at Alpharetta, Johns Creek, etc. Those places are all high income, very suburban, and are not landmarks of diversity, either economically or racially.
Dawgfan, if I lived next door to you, would you mind if I put up my old car on cinder blocks in my front yard, or would you be glad that there were zoning ordinances that would prevent that?
Same thing with the trees- one of the reasons I like Decatur is that it hasn’t been clear cut (yet) by builders seeking to maximize square footage.
Builders and developers complained endlessly about Atlanta’s tree protection ordinance before it passed, with dire predictions of an economic downturn. Atlanta’s housing market is hot and the players have learned to live with the ordinance.
When it passes in Decatur, the first builder to offer to pay the tree fees for his or her clients will have more business than they can handle and others will follow suit. Tree fees will become part of the cost of acquiring land and the marketplace will adjust as it has elsewhere.
I think judgebrandeis pretty much sums up the problem many Decatur citizens have with this tree ordinance – that only the builders and developers (and otherwise deep pocketed homeowners) will have the means to comply with this law.
We all agree – builders and developers will have no problem paying the fees and will go on doing business as usual. Maybe that’s why none of them spoke out against the law at the commission meeting. The less deep pocketed among us who just want to take a tree down in their yard (either because they feel its dangerous or just in the way or ugly) may be subject to thousands of dollars of fees just to take a tree down.
This is a pro builder/developer ordinance and anti-homeowner.
Not apples to apples. Not even apples to oranges. A tree ordinance (in theory) is designed to address a problem (real or percieved) about the loss of tree canopy. A tree ordinance is not designed to promote socioeconomic diversity. If such diversity is a problem that needs addressed, we can enact appropriate policies and ordinances (some would argue that policies designed to increase density in downtown already address this issue (chime in any time Mr. Warren Buffett and correct me if I am wrong)).
And no, I wouldn’t like a car on cinder blocks next door. And yes, I would like appropriate ordinances designed to prevent such a nuisance. But, I also respect the property rights of my neighbors.
Regarding trees, I think I have pretty clearly articulated that we don’t need an ordinance to address the non-problem of tree canopy loss. However, as it appears one will be passed, any such ordinance should not penalize homeowners looking to expand, or those who want to remove trees for safety concerns, aesthetics etc. The “problem” can be tackled in many other ways.
Dawgfan, I don’t think that tree canopy loss is a “non-problem”. And I don’t think the transaction scenario you describe is realistic, it’s just a scare tactic. Look at Atlanta- tree protection ordinance, neighborhood approval required for zoning variances and tree removal, and prices haven’t gone down. Intown neighborhoods are hotter than ever, and sales prices are up.
Builders who want a particular lot won’t let a tree liability that’s 5% of the purchase price stop them, and homeowners have an asset in short supply.
Builders may take a short term hit, but building is a speculative business and they presumably knew that from the outset.
No, not anti-homeowner at all. Builders will adjust to the market- some builders will choose to absorb the tree fees and not pass those onto the homeowner, and some will choose to have the homeowner absorb the fees.
I do think the ordinance could use some adjustment- it doesn’t seem right to have to pay a tree fee if you aren’t actually removing any trees. The ordinance should only be triggered by actual loss to the tree canopy, and not anything else.k
Hopefully in March the ordinance will have been reworked. It would be a shame if it dies, just drive out to Cummings and Alpharetta if you want to see what Decatur could look like without a tree ordinance.
“No, not anti-homeowner at all. Builders will adjust to the market- some builders will choose to absorb the tree fees and not pass those onto the homeowner, and some will choose to have the homeowner absorb the fees.”
This is just flat out wrong. Regarding redevelopment, if this passes, one of two people will pay – either the current homeowner or the new homeowner. The new homeowner via higher purchase price. The current homeowner via lower sales price. I can see the conversation now: Builder (to homeowner): “Yes, similar houses have been selling for $250k, and I would have paid $250k last year. But now your lot has a $15k tree liability, so it is only worth $235k”. I haven’t seen this unintended consequence discussed, but although everyone assumes the new “rich” homeowners will pay for this, sellers will undoubtedly take a hit.
I think this is a more realistic transactional scenario-
Builder- I could have gotten this property last year for 250K
Homeowner- Oh well, that was last year, I still think it’s worth 250K
Builder (to his or her self) hmm, I can still sell the house for 699K after putting 450K into it, that’s still a profit of 250K- is it really worth passing this up because I could have had a profit of 265K last year?
Homeowner- do we have a deal?
Builder- Yes!
Your numbers aren’t even close to realistic. Builders aren’t making a quarter million dollar profit on each house. But, don’t let little things like facts get in the way!
The builders would love it if Decatur passed this tree ordinance – which I think you freely admit. It gives them a clear set of rules, and actually allows them to clear cut a lot, so long as they are willing to pay the fees. They can afford it and will just pass along the cost. Not only that, but their clear cutting will impact the next door neighbor, who may lose tree coverage on their own lot as a result, and will be punished if they expand their house or need/want to remove a tree. Ever thought of that?
You really need to speak to some of your financially disadvantaged, possibly elderly, neighbors, who live in fear of the 100 year old oak tree that probably needs to come down. Not only can they not afford to have it taken down, but under this new ordinance, will have to pay fees and go through a bunch of bureaucratic loopholes to even get there. Again, another win for the builders who can afford it and makes selling out more attractive to the homeowner. Negative impact on economic diversity!
It is just preposterous fear mongering to say that Decatur will look like Alpharetta. That was true 60-80 years ago if you look at a aerial map. Not anymore and we’re not even close to that.
Judgebrandeis:
“Hopefully in March the ordinance will have been reworked. It would be a shame if it dies, just drive out to Cummings and Alpharetta if you want to see what Decatur could look like without a tree ordinance.”
The consultant who crafted this proposed ordinance said it has a lot of similarities to Alpharetta’s tree ordinance.
Dawgfan – Tha hypothetical conversation you describe between a builder and homeowner is the exact conversation my wife and I had recently with a builder interested in purchasing our lot.
Marty (the first Marty from the top) – the proposed tree ordinance has nothing to do with gentrification in Decatur and if it passes the less well off residents will be hurt the most either by declining property values (see my personal example above) or by a financial
inability to cut down or trim a diseased tree because the fees will be too high.
Cannonball,
Try another builder- they’re out there. I’ve sold several lots in my life and it was common to hear the builder say there were problems with the lot that limited the price he or she was offering. I held out and got the price I wanted, everytime.
Remember, land is a finite asset and yours will only get more valuable, not less.
Unless Decatur becomes just another clear cut suburb.
Perhaps. I won’t say it’s not possible but two builders have looked at our lot and we got the same story from both. Neither has come back with a higher price when we balked at the low offers.
Decaur probably looked more like those outer suburbs you referred to 80 years ago but it doesn’t now because it’s an older inner city and not some new 100 acre development in the ‘burbs where no homes existed previously. To say Decatur could look like that is ludicrous.
I can’t resist jumping in here. I love trees and value diversity. Both were factors in purchasing in Oakhurst 16 years ago, as a true ” pioneer”. I moved 7 blocks away to east lake because of the spiraling taxes and this tree ordinance would have killed me financially. And I have a masters degree and make a decent living. But I had already taken 2 huge oaks down, with another failing oak and tulip poplar soon to follow. Decatur is fantastic, but will continue to lose diversity as these issues emerge. I wanted to age in place, but had to face the fact that 10 more years of these costs were unsustainable. I also want to point out the changes in attitude. When I first moved in, a yard not mown resulted in a neighbor asking if you need help. Now it results in judgement. Property rights are a precious commodity!
Not sure where you are in East Lake, but if it’s city of Atlanta you moved into an area with perhaps more restrictive tree ordinances than are proposed for Decatur.
If the proposed Decatur ordinance does not have an exception for diseased and/or failing trees, it should.
I respect property rights, but because I choose to live in a community I also have to respect some limits on what I can do with my property.
“If the proposed Decatur ordinance does not have an exception for diseased and/or failing trees, it should.” — Yes, it should. You might want to read the proposed ordinance, to understand why so many people in Decatur who are fervent–even rabid–believers in community-based principles and policies, nevertheless find the ordinance as it was proposed (and nearly passed) abhorrent.
I’ve read it. I don’t think that “so many” people find it abhorrent, most of my neighbors and friends think it was a good idea. I wonder why so many who proclaim themselves to be fervent believers in community based principles are so dead set on seeing this ordinance fail, and mainly using scare tactics as vehicle to that end.
Obviously there is support for regulation that would reduce the amount of tree removal going on in the city. And those who are opposed need to have their concerns heard. And the ordinance as written could use some improvement.
But I think the over all idea is sound, it’s worked in other cities and would work here.
But those opposed to the ordinance don’t argue against the merits, but rather trot out doomsday scenarios about folks trapped in homes they can’t afford and that no one will buy, dismiss the decrease in the city’s tree canopy as ” a non-problem” and make red herring arguments that this is a back door way to socially manage the growth of Decatur.
Wow. Go back and read DM last week. In fact, the opponents were asking for anyone to articulate the merits of the ordinance. The only thing you have said in support is “trees are pretty”.
” but rather trot out doomsday scenarios about folks trapped in homes they can’t afford and that no one will buy,” — You are misunderstanding some of the opposition.
Gentrification is a shift in an urban community toward wealthier residents and/or businesses and increasing property values, sometimes to the detriment of the poorer residents of the community.
The taxes/fees of the ordinance will have detrimental economic consequences on less wealthy and fixed income residents , either preventing their ability to remodel their home or serving as a factor causing them to leave Decatur. This was expressed by residents during the commission meeting. How does someone on a fixed income absorb a tree tax/fee that may run into thousands of dollars?
I don’t think that would be the case, but if it were I’m sure there are ways to ameliorate any of those consequences.
As I’ve said before, the tree fees would be a cost of doing business for those engaged in remodeling or construction. It’s really no different in end effect than the prices of land rising in the long term. Providers of those services can choose to absorb the costs or pass them thru.
I’m sure there will be plenty of builders that will choose to absorb the costs and go on to make their living. Do you see a dearth of building going on in Atlanta because of their tree ordinances? Did people living in that city flee when the ordinance passed?
To suggest that Decatur will become a victim of “tree flight” if the ordinance passes just defies logic.
Case scenario: The owner of a 1600 sq ft 3/2 bungalow wants to put in a small 160 sq ft deck (10×16). This would increase impervious by 10% and trigger that 55% rule. If they are not already blessed with major canopy, they will have to plant 2-4 trees, even if they don’t cut any down to build the deck. This would reasonably cost $1-2k and could nearly double the cost of the deck.
Look at the scenarios published by the City for potential scenarios (go to Decaturish). Builders and wealthy purchasers of $700k homes will not bat an eye. But those with less means will be affected, no doubt.
Dawgfan,
I haven’t said actually said “trees are pretty”. They are, but that’s besides the point.
Take a good look at cities with a tree ordinance. Let me know when you find the residential flight and reduction in home values you forsee happening here.
In truth, if you remove the effects of the recession, the City of Atlanta’s tree ordinance certainly hasn’t hurt property sales or values.
How about 600-700 folks donate around $100 each to buy some trees for Decatur? Should be easy with all the passion to protect our canopy. How about 1,000 folks ? What is the price for 3,600 trees? Decaturish had an article about an initiative by Chad Stogner. Shouldn’t a proactive approach trusting the citizens of Decatur first be attempted before moving toward an approach of punitive taxes/fees?
Dawgfan – thanks for thinking of me above. I’m not quite sure, but I think I support what you’re saying. The rhetoric and “he said, she said” is pretty deep over this. To everyone – Don’t you think we could have a way to preserve our tree canopy without everyone hating everyone else and painting each other with broad brushes. Obviously this ordinance fails that simple test majorly. We all seem to agree that trees are generally good. We shouldn’t be torn apart by them. I hope we can come up with something less divisive than what has been proposed.
Here’s what I do wonder about – what impact will this ordinance have on downtown development? I think it could be detrimental to attracting the type of thoughtful density, that could help provide a greater mix of uses and mix of incomes that we so badly need to take our downtown to the next level of greatness. I see this increasing the cost and risk of development downtown and making density harder by either increasing development costs or decreasing available development land. Can anyone (judgebrandeis?) tell me I’m wrong?
To DEM,
From a purely economic standpoint, there is no difference.
Ben, yes there should be a way to preserve the canopy. I don’t think that pure volunteerism will do it, and I think the ordinance as proposed needs some revision. What do you think?
I think my main point is my right to prioritize the maintenance or changes to my own property. This forces additional costs to maintain the trees that might prevent other home improvements, like a new roof or repaired driveway. Trust your neighbors to care about the neighborhood and use positive incentives, not punitive fees.
Deb, I agree completely. While I understand that some getting behind this ordinance may just have personal concerns about trees and some are resistant to change, my impression is that at least some of those heavily pushing this have an underlying, fundamental lack of respect for other humans.
When I mentioned respecting private property rights, the response was it’s a privilege, not a right. When I mentioned that you can’t legislate emotions or morality, it was ignored. No cost-benefit analysis equals no problem. The lack of a population-wide information campaign returns crickets. Mentioning the lack of a defined problem (i.e. canopy cover) and the lack of community-wide majority consensus (even the results in the city forum) are also ignored. Safety concerns and individual preferences (diversity!) are dismissed; Instead, we’re told that we don’t get it and need to be educated (by them). Questioning the high costs of the proposed program has elicited responses from “You live in Decatur, you can afford it” to “It’s really not that much.” Suggestions of using incentives and volunteerism, instead of penalties, are immediately dismissed because obviously, us humans are all evil. Using public land is deemed insufficient… This is simply a case of some people screaming I want, I want, I want!
Thanks for your comments and conversation Judgebrandeis.
Contradiction – a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.
“An area of high income doesn’t rule out divesity, but doesn’t foster it either. If only the wealthy can afford new housing stock, only the wealthy will live here. Take a look at Alpharetta, Johns Creek, etc. Those places are all high income, very suburban, and are not landmarks of diversity, either economically or racially.”
“To suggest that Decatur will become a victim of “tree flight” if the ordinance passes just defies logic.”
I can’t recall anyone pushing for this addressing accountability. How about “give someone an inch and they’ll take a mile?” If this passes, what else will we have to contend with from the newly emboldened fringe?
Living here is not a must and plans for kids are nil, so where’s my incentive to stay? As others have stated, the cost of living was a reason they left. What about new commercial business? This will change Decatur. I’m one example, who will, if restricted from my plans, leave my “teardown” as-is and sell to the highest bidder when I’m ready (likely a developer), who will demolish it for something newer and larger on my 1/3 acre. That’s not doomsday; it’s reality and you will have some bitter people leaving. +1 for reputation / image control. I just wonder whom the supporters will blame?
We bought our 70 year old house 10 years ago with the intent to expand at some point. Its on an over-sized lot, with PLENTY of room to expand impermeable surface.
As our kids approach the age where they need their own bathrooms to maintain family harmony, we were planning to expand our house to update it and add about 20-30% more space. So our 1800 sq ft house might increase to about 2300 square feet and retain the character of an original Decatur home. I’ve done the math – it makes sense for us to expand our house to avoid the transaction costs of buying a new house.
However, adding in the complexity and incremental costs of this ordinance will add friction to our plans to expand.
Given our lot is somewhere between 40-50% canopy at this point, i can expect the requirement to plant trees where i don’t want them. But the worst part is these trees will now be protected in perpetuity – essentially establishing an easement on my property.
So what is a homeowner to do? Given i have an oversized lot, I can sell at a premium to a developer who will maximize the impervious surface to put a massive new home on the lot. Will they keep the existing trees? I don’t know, but I know this ordinance will not stop them from cutting them down. I will then buy MY new home from a builder who has done this on a smaller lot that i can afford.
This illustrates how the new ordinance will actually stimulate tear downs.
Pierce,
What if you decide to move and a young family finds your home perfect as is? You get the treeless lot you want, and someone gets a starter home. Just as likely a scenario…
JudgeBrandeis — “I’ve read it. I don’t think that “so many” people find it abhorrent, most of my neighbors and friends think it was a good idea. I wonder why so many who proclaim themselves to be fervent believers in community based principles are so dead set on seeing this ordinance fail, and mainly using scare tactics as vehicle to that end.”
You must live in the pocket of the 25% that voted in the online poll in support, not the 2/3 against.
“Actually my numbers are pretty good. But you don’t seem to let the facts get in your way, either- re “tree canopy loss is a non problem.”
I appreciate Mayor Baskett’s service to our community. Mayor Baskett was the lone vote for the recent version of the tree ordinance. One topic the city has not addressed is the effect of the ordinance on homeowner gentrification. Some may advocate for a homogeneous population of homeowners, lacking socioeconomic diversity. I do not support this perspective.
So, you think a tree ordinance is the proper tool to promote/retain socioeconomic diversity? Or are you being sarcastic?
Are people homogenous merely because they have similar incomes?
An area of high income doesn’t rule out divesity, but doesn’t foster it either. If only the wealthy can afford new housing stock, only the wealthy will live here. Take a look at Alpharetta, Johns Creek, etc. Those places are all high income, very suburban, and are not landmarks of diversity, either economically or racially.
OK, but why is this relevant when discussing a proposed tree ordinance?
we must promote tree diversity as well?
Dawgfan, if I lived next door to you, would you mind if I put up my old car on cinder blocks in my front yard, or would you be glad that there were zoning ordinances that would prevent that?
Same thing with the trees- one of the reasons I like Decatur is that it hasn’t been clear cut (yet) by builders seeking to maximize square footage.
Builders and developers complained endlessly about Atlanta’s tree protection ordinance before it passed, with dire predictions of an economic downturn. Atlanta’s housing market is hot and the players have learned to live with the ordinance.
When it passes in Decatur, the first builder to offer to pay the tree fees for his or her clients will have more business than they can handle and others will follow suit. Tree fees will become part of the cost of acquiring land and the marketplace will adjust as it has elsewhere.
I think judgebrandeis pretty much sums up the problem many Decatur citizens have with this tree ordinance – that only the builders and developers (and otherwise deep pocketed homeowners) will have the means to comply with this law.
We all agree – builders and developers will have no problem paying the fees and will go on doing business as usual. Maybe that’s why none of them spoke out against the law at the commission meeting. The less deep pocketed among us who just want to take a tree down in their yard (either because they feel its dangerous or just in the way or ugly) may be subject to thousands of dollars of fees just to take a tree down.
This is a pro builder/developer ordinance and anti-homeowner.
Not apples to apples. Not even apples to oranges. A tree ordinance (in theory) is designed to address a problem (real or percieved) about the loss of tree canopy. A tree ordinance is not designed to promote socioeconomic diversity. If such diversity is a problem that needs addressed, we can enact appropriate policies and ordinances (some would argue that policies designed to increase density in downtown already address this issue (chime in any time Mr. Warren Buffett and correct me if I am wrong)).
And no, I wouldn’t like a car on cinder blocks next door. And yes, I would like appropriate ordinances designed to prevent such a nuisance. But, I also respect the property rights of my neighbors.
Regarding trees, I think I have pretty clearly articulated that we don’t need an ordinance to address the non-problem of tree canopy loss. However, as it appears one will be passed, any such ordinance should not penalize homeowners looking to expand, or those who want to remove trees for safety concerns, aesthetics etc. The “problem” can be tackled in many other ways.
Dawgfan, I don’t think that tree canopy loss is a “non-problem”. And I don’t think the transaction scenario you describe is realistic, it’s just a scare tactic. Look at Atlanta- tree protection ordinance, neighborhood approval required for zoning variances and tree removal, and prices haven’t gone down. Intown neighborhoods are hotter than ever, and sales prices are up.
Builders who want a particular lot won’t let a tree liability that’s 5% of the purchase price stop them, and homeowners have an asset in short supply.
Builders may take a short term hit, but building is a speculative business and they presumably knew that from the outset.
No, not anti-homeowner at all. Builders will adjust to the market- some builders will choose to absorb the tree fees and not pass those onto the homeowner, and some will choose to have the homeowner absorb the fees.
I do think the ordinance could use some adjustment- it doesn’t seem right to have to pay a tree fee if you aren’t actually removing any trees. The ordinance should only be triggered by actual loss to the tree canopy, and not anything else.k
Hopefully in March the ordinance will have been reworked. It would be a shame if it dies, just drive out to Cummings and Alpharetta if you want to see what Decatur could look like without a tree ordinance.
pics of what this apparent abomination looks like?
“No, not anti-homeowner at all. Builders will adjust to the market- some builders will choose to absorb the tree fees and not pass those onto the homeowner, and some will choose to have the homeowner absorb the fees.”
This is just flat out wrong. Regarding redevelopment, if this passes, one of two people will pay – either the current homeowner or the new homeowner. The new homeowner via higher purchase price. The current homeowner via lower sales price. I can see the conversation now: Builder (to homeowner): “Yes, similar houses have been selling for $250k, and I would have paid $250k last year. But now your lot has a $15k tree liability, so it is only worth $235k”. I haven’t seen this unintended consequence discussed, but although everyone assumes the new “rich” homeowners will pay for this, sellers will undoubtedly take a hit.
this was a response to judgebrandeis, not jwl
I think this is a more realistic transactional scenario-
Builder- I could have gotten this property last year for 250K
Homeowner- Oh well, that was last year, I still think it’s worth 250K
Builder (to his or her self) hmm, I can still sell the house for 699K after putting 450K into it, that’s still a profit of 250K- is it really worth passing this up because I could have had a profit of 265K last year?
Homeowner- do we have a deal?
Builder- Yes!
Your numbers aren’t even close to realistic. Builders aren’t making a quarter million dollar profit on each house. But, don’t let little things like facts get in the way!
450 (build) +250 (land) =700. That equals a loss of one thousand dollars considering a purchase price of $699.
Judgebrandeis,
The builders would love it if Decatur passed this tree ordinance – which I think you freely admit. It gives them a clear set of rules, and actually allows them to clear cut a lot, so long as they are willing to pay the fees. They can afford it and will just pass along the cost. Not only that, but their clear cutting will impact the next door neighbor, who may lose tree coverage on their own lot as a result, and will be punished if they expand their house or need/want to remove a tree. Ever thought of that?
You really need to speak to some of your financially disadvantaged, possibly elderly, neighbors, who live in fear of the 100 year old oak tree that probably needs to come down. Not only can they not afford to have it taken down, but under this new ordinance, will have to pay fees and go through a bunch of bureaucratic loopholes to even get there. Again, another win for the builders who can afford it and makes selling out more attractive to the homeowner. Negative impact on economic diversity!
It is just preposterous fear mongering to say that Decatur will look like Alpharetta. That was true 60-80 years ago if you look at a aerial map. Not anymore and we’re not even close to that.
Judgebrandeis:
“Hopefully in March the ordinance will have been reworked. It would be a shame if it dies, just drive out to Cummings and Alpharetta if you want to see what Decatur could look like without a tree ordinance.”
The consultant who crafted this proposed ordinance said it has a lot of similarities to Alpharetta’s tree ordinance.
Dawgfan – Tha hypothetical conversation you describe between a builder and homeowner is the exact conversation my wife and I had recently with a builder interested in purchasing our lot.
Marty (the first Marty from the top) – the proposed tree ordinance has nothing to do with gentrification in Decatur and if it passes the less well off residents will be hurt the most either by declining property values (see my personal example above) or by a financial
inability to cut down or trim a diseased tree because the fees will be too high.
Cannonball,
Try another builder- they’re out there. I’ve sold several lots in my life and it was common to hear the builder say there were problems with the lot that limited the price he or she was offering. I held out and got the price I wanted, everytime.
Remember, land is a finite asset and yours will only get more valuable, not less.
Unless Decatur becomes just another clear cut suburb.
Perhaps. I won’t say it’s not possible but two builders have looked at our lot and we got the same story from both. Neither has come back with a higher price when we balked at the low offers.
Decaur probably looked more like those outer suburbs you referred to 80 years ago but it doesn’t now because it’s an older inner city and not some new 100 acre development in the ‘burbs where no homes existed previously. To say Decatur could look like that is ludicrous.
I can’t resist jumping in here. I love trees and value diversity. Both were factors in purchasing in Oakhurst 16 years ago, as a true ” pioneer”. I moved 7 blocks away to east lake because of the spiraling taxes and this tree ordinance would have killed me financially. And I have a masters degree and make a decent living. But I had already taken 2 huge oaks down, with another failing oak and tulip poplar soon to follow. Decatur is fantastic, but will continue to lose diversity as these issues emerge. I wanted to age in place, but had to face the fact that 10 more years of these costs were unsustainable. I also want to point out the changes in attitude. When I first moved in, a yard not mown resulted in a neighbor asking if you need help. Now it results in judgement. Property rights are a precious commodity!
+1 gazillion-zillion-bobillion
Exactly Deb. I second STG – +1 gazillion-zillion-bobillion
Not sure where you are in East Lake, but if it’s city of Atlanta you moved into an area with perhaps more restrictive tree ordinances than are proposed for Decatur.
If the proposed Decatur ordinance does not have an exception for diseased and/or failing trees, it should.
I respect property rights, but because I choose to live in a community I also have to respect some limits on what I can do with my property.
“If the proposed Decatur ordinance does not have an exception for diseased and/or failing trees, it should.” — Yes, it should. You might want to read the proposed ordinance, to understand why so many people in Decatur who are fervent–even rabid–believers in community-based principles and policies, nevertheless find the ordinance as it was proposed (and nearly passed) abhorrent.
I’ve read it. I don’t think that “so many” people find it abhorrent, most of my neighbors and friends think it was a good idea. I wonder why so many who proclaim themselves to be fervent believers in community based principles are so dead set on seeing this ordinance fail, and mainly using scare tactics as vehicle to that end.
Obviously there is support for regulation that would reduce the amount of tree removal going on in the city. And those who are opposed need to have their concerns heard. And the ordinance as written could use some improvement.
But I think the over all idea is sound, it’s worked in other cities and would work here.
But those opposed to the ordinance don’t argue against the merits, but rather trot out doomsday scenarios about folks trapped in homes they can’t afford and that no one will buy, dismiss the decrease in the city’s tree canopy as ” a non-problem” and make red herring arguments that this is a back door way to socially manage the growth of Decatur.
Wow. Go back and read DM last week. In fact, the opponents were asking for anyone to articulate the merits of the ordinance. The only thing you have said in support is “trees are pretty”.
” but rather trot out doomsday scenarios about folks trapped in homes they can’t afford and that no one will buy,” — You are misunderstanding some of the opposition.
Gentrification is a shift in an urban community toward wealthier residents and/or businesses and increasing property values, sometimes to the detriment of the poorer residents of the community.
The taxes/fees of the ordinance will have detrimental economic consequences on less wealthy and fixed income residents , either preventing their ability to remodel their home or serving as a factor causing them to leave Decatur. This was expressed by residents during the commission meeting. How does someone on a fixed income absorb a tree tax/fee that may run into thousands of dollars?
I don’t think that would be the case, but if it were I’m sure there are ways to ameliorate any of those consequences.
As I’ve said before, the tree fees would be a cost of doing business for those engaged in remodeling or construction. It’s really no different in end effect than the prices of land rising in the long term. Providers of those services can choose to absorb the costs or pass them thru.
I’m sure there will be plenty of builders that will choose to absorb the costs and go on to make their living. Do you see a dearth of building going on in Atlanta because of their tree ordinances? Did people living in that city flee when the ordinance passed?
To suggest that Decatur will become a victim of “tree flight” if the ordinance passes just defies logic.
.
Case scenario: The owner of a 1600 sq ft 3/2 bungalow wants to put in a small 160 sq ft deck (10×16). This would increase impervious by 10% and trigger that 55% rule. If they are not already blessed with major canopy, they will have to plant 2-4 trees, even if they don’t cut any down to build the deck. This would reasonably cost $1-2k and could nearly double the cost of the deck.
Look at the scenarios published by the City for potential scenarios (go to Decaturish). Builders and wealthy purchasers of $700k homes will not bat an eye. But those with less means will be affected, no doubt.
There is a huge difference between government-imposed fees and an increase in the market price of land. You really think they’re the same thing?
the fees would suppress the value of the land, not inflate it.
dawgfan,
Actually my numbers are pretty good. But you don’t seem to let the facts get in your way, either- re “tree canopy loss is a non problem.”
Dawgfan,
I haven’t said actually said “trees are pretty”. They are, but that’s besides the point.
Take a good look at cities with a tree ordinance. Let me know when you find the residential flight and reduction in home values you forsee happening here.
In truth, if you remove the effects of the recession, the City of Atlanta’s tree ordinance certainly hasn’t hurt property sales or values.
How about 600-700 folks donate around $100 each to buy some trees for Decatur? Should be easy with all the passion to protect our canopy. How about 1,000 folks ? What is the price for 3,600 trees? Decaturish had an article about an initiative by Chad Stogner. Shouldn’t a proactive approach trusting the citizens of Decatur first be attempted before moving toward an approach of punitive taxes/fees?
Dawgfan – thanks for thinking of me above. I’m not quite sure, but I think I support what you’re saying. The rhetoric and “he said, she said” is pretty deep over this. To everyone – Don’t you think we could have a way to preserve our tree canopy without everyone hating everyone else and painting each other with broad brushes. Obviously this ordinance fails that simple test majorly. We all seem to agree that trees are generally good. We shouldn’t be torn apart by them. I hope we can come up with something less divisive than what has been proposed.
Here’s what I do wonder about – what impact will this ordinance have on downtown development? I think it could be detrimental to attracting the type of thoughtful density, that could help provide a greater mix of uses and mix of incomes that we so badly need to take our downtown to the next level of greatness. I see this increasing the cost and risk of development downtown and making density harder by either increasing development costs or decreasing available development land. Can anyone (judgebrandeis?) tell me I’m wrong?
To DEM,
From a purely economic standpoint, there is no difference.
Ben, yes there should be a way to preserve the canopy. I don’t think that pure volunteerism will do it, and I think the ordinance as proposed needs some revision. What do you think?
And from a purely economic standpoint, there is no difference between losing $50 in cash and having it stolen. True, but meaningless.
I think my main point is my right to prioritize the maintenance or changes to my own property. This forces additional costs to maintain the trees that might prevent other home improvements, like a new roof or repaired driveway. Trust your neighbors to care about the neighborhood and use positive incentives, not punitive fees.
Deb, I agree completely. While I understand that some getting behind this ordinance may just have personal concerns about trees and some are resistant to change, my impression is that at least some of those heavily pushing this have an underlying, fundamental lack of respect for other humans.
When I mentioned respecting private property rights, the response was it’s a privilege, not a right. When I mentioned that you can’t legislate emotions or morality, it was ignored. No cost-benefit analysis equals no problem. The lack of a population-wide information campaign returns crickets. Mentioning the lack of a defined problem (i.e. canopy cover) and the lack of community-wide majority consensus (even the results in the city forum) are also ignored. Safety concerns and individual preferences (diversity!) are dismissed; Instead, we’re told that we don’t get it and need to be educated (by them). Questioning the high costs of the proposed program has elicited responses from “You live in Decatur, you can afford it” to “It’s really not that much.” Suggestions of using incentives and volunteerism, instead of penalties, are immediately dismissed because obviously, us humans are all evil. Using public land is deemed insufficient… This is simply a case of some people screaming I want, I want, I want!
+1
Thanks for your comments and conversation Judgebrandeis.
Contradiction – a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.
“An area of high income doesn’t rule out divesity, but doesn’t foster it either. If only the wealthy can afford new housing stock, only the wealthy will live here. Take a look at Alpharetta, Johns Creek, etc. Those places are all high income, very suburban, and are not landmarks of diversity, either economically or racially.”
“To suggest that Decatur will become a victim of “tree flight” if the ordinance passes just defies logic.”
I can’t recall anyone pushing for this addressing accountability. How about “give someone an inch and they’ll take a mile?” If this passes, what else will we have to contend with from the newly emboldened fringe?
Living here is not a must and plans for kids are nil, so where’s my incentive to stay? As others have stated, the cost of living was a reason they left. What about new commercial business? This will change Decatur. I’m one example, who will, if restricted from my plans, leave my “teardown” as-is and sell to the highest bidder when I’m ready (likely a developer), who will demolish it for something newer and larger on my 1/3 acre. That’s not doomsday; it’s reality and you will have some bitter people leaving. +1 for reputation / image control. I just wonder whom the supporters will blame?
You are exactly right Peter.
We bought our 70 year old house 10 years ago with the intent to expand at some point. Its on an over-sized lot, with PLENTY of room to expand impermeable surface.
As our kids approach the age where they need their own bathrooms to maintain family harmony, we were planning to expand our house to update it and add about 20-30% more space. So our 1800 sq ft house might increase to about 2300 square feet and retain the character of an original Decatur home. I’ve done the math – it makes sense for us to expand our house to avoid the transaction costs of buying a new house.
However, adding in the complexity and incremental costs of this ordinance will add friction to our plans to expand.
Given our lot is somewhere between 40-50% canopy at this point, i can expect the requirement to plant trees where i don’t want them. But the worst part is these trees will now be protected in perpetuity – essentially establishing an easement on my property.
So what is a homeowner to do? Given i have an oversized lot, I can sell at a premium to a developer who will maximize the impervious surface to put a massive new home on the lot. Will they keep the existing trees? I don’t know, but I know this ordinance will not stop them from cutting them down. I will then buy MY new home from a builder who has done this on a smaller lot that i can afford.
This illustrates how the new ordinance will actually stimulate tear downs.
Pierce,
What if you decide to move and a young family finds your home perfect as is? You get the treeless lot you want, and someone gets a starter home. Just as likely a scenario…
JudgeBrandeis — “I’ve read it. I don’t think that “so many” people find it abhorrent, most of my neighbors and friends think it was a good idea. I wonder why so many who proclaim themselves to be fervent believers in community based principles are so dead set on seeing this ordinance fail, and mainly using scare tactics as vehicle to that end.”
You must live in the pocket of the 25% that voted in the online poll in support, not the 2/3 against.
“Actually my numbers are pretty good. But you don’t seem to let the facts get in your way, either- re “tree canopy loss is a non problem.”
What facts? You are speculating as well.
And there was snow.