Decatur’s New Tree Ordinance is Now in Effect

61 thoughts on “Decatur’s New Tree Ordinance is Now in Effect”

1. 
   

2. I’d be interested in seeing the financial statements over the next year from the Decatur-based environmental consulting and arborist companies, the same groups that lobbied for this ordinance. Want to bet me a $1 they increase in this conflict of interest?

   I bet we hear crickets.

4. What’s the conflict of interest? Are you saying they shouldn’t be allowed to lobby the City on behalf of a law that might benefit them? Isn’t that pretty much how the government functions everywhere?
   On a somewhat related note, yesterday I heard about an app a high-schooler invented called Greenhouse. With it, any time you come across a U.S. congressperson’s name in a web article, you can mouse over it and the app will reveal where most of the official’s campaign donations come from.

   For me the conflict of interest would be if any of these consultants you mentioned donated money to anyone on the Commission. So maybe we need an app for that.

   1. Companies lobby to change laws to be allowed to do something. In this case, they lobbied for a restriction that creates a required layer of consultation through companies like theirs where there wasn’t one previously. Through this, they make more money and therefore, as I see it, it is a conflict of interest. It’d be like if the frozen yogurt shops banded together to lobby for a law that requires everyone to buy frozen yogurt somewhere on Fridays.

      The app sounds like a nice addition to the campaign donation websites.

6. It is too bad that the voices of residents and property owners did not persuade the Commission – listening to constituents is another aspect of government bodies in the U.S. A majority of Decatur residents voiced clear and concise opposition to numerous iterations of this rule (including the rule that was implemented) – yet the rule is now in effect. Why didn’t the system work as it should?

   1. “Why didn’t the system work as it should?”

      The mayor had a beef with a neighbor over a tree. This ordinance would have prevented said neighbor from doing what he/she wanted on his/her yard. The mayor made sure this never happened to him again.

8. “Companies lobby to change laws to be allowed to do something. In this case, they lobbied for a restriction that creates a required layer of consultation through companies like theirs where there wasn’t one previously.”

   Okay, but I still say that this type of lobbying occurs all the time and has shaped much of the policy we interact with routinely. For example, the restrictions on what one can invest in within a 401K were lobbied for and partly shaped by the mutual fund industry. They undoubtedly cited consumer protection as justification, but certainly the restrictions benefit them. The conflict-of-interest, in my view, is when the lawmaker stands to benefit financially from going along with the lobbyists.

   1. Are there such restrictions? My understanding is that if your employer offers a personal choice retirement account, you can invest in anything you wish.

      I agree with you about the conflict issue.

      1. Prohibited investments include life insurance, collectibles, real estate (as residence or source of rental income), coins (with some exceptions).

   2. Another, more locally pertinent, example would be the restrictions on craft breweries selling directly to consumers. That restriction (which I really can’t see any reason for at all ), though perhaps not originally a result of lobbying, remains in place in thanks to lobbying (and campaign contributions) from distributors.

      1. I don’t disagree about lobbyists and their control over most industries in this country and elsewhere. It can be frustrating sometimes.

         Re: direct sales, yep, it’s completely distributors, just like the odd growler restrictions in Florida. While talking to the brewer at Cherry Street a few weeks ago, he relayed how much influence the representative from Forsyth Co (name fails me) had over the botched bill last session, how much conversation has taken place since, what was said, etc, and how they believe they should have enough support for it next session. Apparently, it will be a hot topic, but we’ll see.

         1. State Sen, Jack Murphy.

            macon.com/2014/02/16/2941894/to-dismay-of-craft-brewers-ga.html

   3. I don’t think it’s just your view. Companies such as the tree companies are beholden to their own interests. Getting policy changed in their favor serves those interests. There’s no conflict.

      If they were contributing to campaign budgets and then calling in favors, however, there’d be conflict on the part of the elected official.

   4. You make a valid point that the advocates may not have had a conflict of interest. But let’s focus on the larger issue of how the commission, and especially the Mayor, dismissed the wishes of the broad base of Decatur residents who largely did not (and still do not) want this complex, punitive, and burdensome ordinance. Instead, they capitulated to a vocal minority, which we learned were led by environmental consultants, who happen to have an economic interest in requiring their neighbors to get consultations, file permits, etc. to make choices about their own property. Others, it appeared, just want to be able to control what others are able to do on their property.

      The previous Mayor was right. It is time that Decatur had an elected Mayor.

10. “Others, it appeared, just want to be able to control what others are able to do on their property.”

    I don’t think it’s that simple. I don’t think the ordinance is a good one, but I also don’t think we should dismiss the value of trees to everyone’s quality of life. We wouldn’t tolerate someone burning garbage on their property in the name of property rights (not here anyway), but, in my opinion, the removal of trees could potentially have consequences that, though not as immediately apparent, are even more detrimental to our community.

    1. A lot of this is anti-change / development and will only encourage pushes for further restrictions and control. The proposed conservation districts in the UDO reek of trying to turn Decatur into one large HOA. Some of it is spite, some an “I got mine” attitude, some an obsession with controlling others, some just traditional resistance to change. Besides, Decatur is so covered with trees that you often can’t see anything else. I don’t get the obsession here.

       I have some very spiteful neighbors who obsess over any improvements we make to our fixer upper. When removing some trees that destroyed my driveway and were growing into my foundation, I got screamed at from the street. While stabilizing the foundation (not cheap!), she screamed at the contractors. My new driveway? She called the city and made multiple fake claims that caused them to rush out, yell at me, want to search my property, and delayed everything 2 hours, then tried to stare us down later. I built a privacy fence to replace the damaged chain link (also so I don’t have to see another neighbor’s literally trash-covered yard), more scowls on the front porch. I cut down some long-dead trees, more scowls. Bear in mind they don’t maintain anything and only ever come outside to scowl or yell at me. It’s about control.

       Also, once you start removing people’s rights on their deeded private property in the name of community resource, it’s going to open up a conversation about why we pay property taxes.

       1. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.

          ― Robert A. Heinlein

       2. Whoah, Peter–sounds like your neighbors are more full-on loons than just NIMBYers. I’m sorry you have to live next to people who clearly don’t realize (or care) that rudeness & surliness is no way to persuade others to one’s point of view. You’ve been a lot more patient than I would’ve–I tend not to react very primly/properly when someone screams at me!

          1. No need to apologize, it isn’t your fault. Silly renters. Between the good cop bad cop of my mean mug and my wife just smiling and waving, they get really really ticked off… It’s pretty funny after a certain point.

       3. You could always claim a violation of the noise ordinance.

12. I don’t dispute that there are some who just don’t like change and are motivated by resentment. But I’m sure you agree with me that there are certain things that we rightly don’t tolerate people doing with their property because of how such activity would affect the community’s quality of life. Is it completely unreasonable to suggest that tree removal, if uncontained, might have similarly negative consequences?

    1. First off, tree removal has been unconstrained until today. Decatur has way more trees (45%) than the American Forestry Institute sets as an aspirational goal (40%). Additionally, the unelected city officals keep quoting numbers to the 1/10th of a percent. Canopy measurements have an error of measurement of several percentage points in either direction.

       Secondly, not having a tree is a perfectly acceptable alternative to having a tree. Are we to force people to plant trees? It’s quite a disincentive to plant a tree if you are never able to remove it.

       I also take issue with the pamphlet the city produced on the benefits of trees. Having a tree in close proximity to your house produces a net cost, not a net benefit. Add up the cost of cleaning gutters, the cost of leaf removal, the cost of picking up branches that fall, and then the huge cost at the end of the life of the tree. This is a decision for the property owner to make, not a government official.

    2. Sure, like poisoning a creek. This place is absolutely covered in trees and the decrease over such a long period during heavy development was minuscule; I don’t see a problem. Yes, I know there is some fever pitch obsession with trees here (which I don’t understand), but this isn’t the rain forest and the thick undergrowth doesn’t make it attractive to me anyway. Having lived in cities the majority of my life, let’s say trees aren’t my interest.

       Public land is a community resource maintained by our taxes, but private property isn’t, even if I don’t like how someone is developing their property. As a budding gardener with a large lot, I had planned on planting a couple espalier apple trees, but won’t now due to the ordinance, as well as not adding anything onto my house. So there’s one negative result from this ordinance. The more restrictions they try to pass, the more I will simply treat my house as an investment. I’m headed to the soccer game, enjoy the rest of your day everyone (and the break from me).

14. I’m curious as to how we know (see Eric above) that what the majority/minority of Decatur residents thought about the ordinance. I don’t recall an official survey. Is this simply perception or did someone collect data? I ask because there may be many people who agreed with the ordinance who did not speak up because they agreed with it and it looked like it was going to pass. Just curious.

    1. I think many people are too busy to read the actual ordinance and draw implications. They see “tree ordinance” and think “I like trees” so they tacitly support without reading the actual document and pay no attention since they think there will be no negative consequences to them.

       It is shocking that some of the biggest advocates of the ordinance didn’t even realize what was in it because they haven’t carefully read it, particularly when it was first revealed.

       However, it’s equally shocking that some of these advocates would be willing to brandish weapons on tree removal crews (see the Oct 2013 Lenox place incident).

       1. Regarding the brandishing of weapons, not exactly. I was not there but have spoken with people involved. As I understand it, the owner of Stoney River was standing on the individual’s property, acting in an intimidating manner, and motioning for the tree crew to join him. After that, the rifle was retrieved and held with the muzzle pointed to the ground. I believe the arrest in the incident was for disorderly conduct and not for assault. The AJC story may have been sensational. Take this as second hand because it is, but there are differing sides to the story.

          1. What’s Stoney River?

          2. So what you are saying is you condone the potential threat of violence and vigilantism rather than to rely on police. Retrieving a weapon (which there is no doubt was done) in this case is just inexcusable.

             Why would the owner of Stoney River be trespassing and threatening a homeowner? I find it hard to believe builders just walk around on other people’s property threatening them. Was the homeowner threatening him and his crew?

             Am I the only one who finds it ironic in a scary sense where someone who is trying to prevent another property owner from doing as he wishes with his property but yet intimates the use of force to (assuming this is the correct version of events) defend his property from a trespasser?

             These aren’t ancient redwoods or sequoias. They’re water oaks that were planted as farmland was reclaimed.

             1. Agreed. And what I don’t get is, even if the homeowner is justified in their anger about the project, why take it out on the developer (or even less rationally, the work crew)? They are doing what the City allows them to do. Express your anger at the voting booth.

             2. Wow. How did you conclude that I condone any of it? I was attempting to provide further details, albeit admittedly second hand, regarding an incident that you had just over simplified more than was already done in the news.

                I do not condone the unjustified initiation of gun violence but I also do not condone the frequent jumping to conclusions in the comments here that also have the potential to damage the community. There is not an insignificant amount of conjecture, willful assumption and erroneous information in your post. I do not pretend to know the state of mind of others and neither should you. I also do not mis-identify tree species to prove my point. It was a white oak or Quercus alba if you prefer the scientific classification.

                I am reminded why I usually don’t sink to participation in the bickering here and I certainly did not intend to in my original post. Please don’t belittle others for misinformed action if you seek to cause personal offense while doing the same.

                1. I’m no troll, re-read your post and mine. It is not my intent to be uncivil nor spread rumors. I merely alluded to the incident as an example of the intensity of the pro-tree ordinance group. I made no mention of arrest or what the charge was. I included the comment about the water oak because many of the comments about trees in other locations are water oaks, but it is confusing in this case.

                   I said condone because your post justifies the actions of the homeowner, thereby implying acceptance. It’s also defensive of his actions, as you bring up the actual arrest and mention that he was charged with a lesser offense. You also “play the refs” by accusing the AJC article of being sensational.

                   I asked the questions because your account is one-sided. There are some key questions to ask to figure out the situation. I also beg the question of why a builder would be in someone’s front yard making someone feel threatened. It’s a simple question – I don’t understand how this might happen out of the blue, meaning there is likely more to the complete story.

                   Suddenly you’ve jumped out and attacked me. I don’t appreciate the attack and in particular, the “insignificant amount of conjecture, willful assumption and erroneous information” comment where you put me down and claim moral high ground for yourself. If you believe what you wrote, then rebut my comments one by one.

                   I support the property rights of others and my own, and surprisingly am happy to have trees. It’s just not the local government’s authority to dictate.

                   1. WP, It appears that we have each misunderstood the other. My original post was not meant to convey judgement, be supportive, or be one-sided. I don’t really have a horse in that race at all. I will chalk this up to the difficulty of accurately perceiving tone through this sort of text. I am also not a troll and not cruising for a fight. I appreciate your clarification and will offer one of my own. The sentence “So what you are saying is you condone the potential threat of violence and vigilantism rather than to rely on police” that you punctuated with a period and not a question mark struck me as putting very strong words in my mouth. Words that are not true and which could be very damaging. My ire-filled response stemmed from that which I took as an unexpected attack on my character. It looks like we would both have benefited from asking for clarification before going further. I offer a digital handshake.

16. I wonder that too. I also wonder if anyone on the commission attempted to quantify the reaction they received via email, calls, etc, from constituents?

    1. The only quantifiable data we saw were from the Open City Hall survey, which the city touted as their way of gauging constituent feedback. Although a small sample size, the results were 2-1 to 3-1 AGAINST both versions of the proposed ordinance. This being the only publicly available quantifiable feedback, I would think the commissioners and city staff would have made a point of showing that other forms of feedback differed significantly. They did not.

18. any big projects in town that will have to adhere to the new tree ord? Trinity triangle? Schools?

    1. Also, guess who doesn’t comply with the 45% lot coverage? Answer: Any of the commissioners, even the mayor who lives on an acre and a half. That is me using google maps to eyeball it which is about as scientific and accurate as it gets when it comes to calculating canopy coverage.

       Someone should propose at the city meetings that all commissioners should bring their houses (and businesses, Pure service station owned by a commissioner) up to the 45% lot coverage as a show of support for the ordinance they passed.

       1. Amen

20. Seriously, the voters really need to dump the current commission in the next election & particularly the Mayor. They are sending this city down the the road to being completely unresponsive to it’s homeowners. A fact worth noting besides the recent tree ordinance. With the recent retirement of the only city employee of building department, all inspectors, plan reviewers & office personnel are working here as employees of Safe Built, a private business & not employed or working for you, the taxpayers. Last year the city paid almost $600 grand for only 3 personnel from Safe Built. Safe Built receives 75% of all money generated by the building department. If the fact these are leased personnel doesn’t bother anyone, there were never any competitive bids taken for this contract. The recently retired City Building Official cost us less than $90 grand a year with benefits. He had been here almost 20 years & turned the building department into a professionally run department.. The Tree Ordinance is just the tip of the iceberg. Another feature of this wonderful ordinance is if you want to renovate your home, you will either have to prove you have 40% coverage, a plan to plant trees or pay the city. All the while you will be required to PAY the city for the arborist to visit your lot to confirm your claims. Sound like pocket lining?

    1. The city commission and mayor’s main job is to provide oversight and demand accountability of the unelected city officials on behalf of the voters who elected them. Ever since Bill Floyd left, the commission has become a rubber stamp factory.

       Peggy Merriss and Amanda Thompson basically do whatever they want. It is interesting to see how they bring things to the commission with the excuse “a lot of work has already been done” as a justification for doing something. This past budget where they added 5 positions and boosted revenue by 6% (by keeping millage) for no reason is a prime example. The opposite is the school system that cut the millage rate, but less than the superintendent had asked for!

       I think the city management has taken a lot of credit for what has basically been a gentrification and growth dividend driven by the school system and not some change driven by the city administration. Demand is high to live in Decatur because of the school system, not the city government.

       1. I would argue that the school-city effect has never been one-way but always very two-way. I can remember times in the past when the city was much better run and more responsive to citizens. I think the city has always known that the schools and Downtown business were two major keys to Decatur’s success. There was a time when the city was reaching out to CSD and the latter was not so responsive.

          Things did seem very smooth and successful during Mayor Floyd’s time in office. If that’s changed substantially, that’s a shame. I’m too far on the periphery to know.

       2. I think the growth is due as much to external factors as internal. APS and DeKalb Co. simultaneously went to hell and Decatur is by far the best option for those who want to stay in town (except maybe for those who can afford Buckhead and private schools). Yes, city management and CSD have done a good job in the past and they are a large part of the reason for Decatur being the best in town option, buy they are receiving a disproportionate amount of credit for the recent boom.

          1. I agree with DawgFan(!). But I would add to those external factors a general trend that transcends Decatur and metro Atlanta: the growing demand for more walkable, more urban areas near transit (not having kids, that’s nearly the entire reason we moved here). Decatur has the added feature of a superior school system, hence its appeal to both families and those without kids.

    2. Not only is the city paying a ridiculous amount to SafeBuilt, who are outside contractors over whom we have no control, their turnaround time is ridiculously long, especially considering how much they get paid.

       1. Exactly. Plus it feels the city management has too many chiefs and not enough indians (sorry for not being pc)

    3. I don’t think many realize it’s outsourced to Safebuilt. Re: the 15% trigger, my limit is 207 total sq ft for my 1,385 sq ft of condition space. Never mind that my long lot is 1/3 acre. From what J_T has stated, he’d be allowed even less. I’ve dropped plans to expand the kitchen and tiny second bedroom to add a closet and at least one non-cramped bathroom. It will be a tear-down for the land when I eventually sell it, but not my problem.

       People here mostly drive (Decaturites, too), so what incentive do businesses have to build new here vs. one of the towns that are currently working on creating a nice, walkable downtown without the restrictions?

       WP resident: I attended meetings regularly in the past, but not now, and agree. I find them smug. Looking forward, the combo of the city not genuinely reaching out to residents with issues and seemingly ignoring what public input they do receive, while enacting expensive restrictions and personal agendas is a path to not just changing the demographics, but increasing resident apathy.

       1. Yes, it does seem like things are driven by personal agendas with a veener of “resident input” after which they just do what they wanted to do in the first place anyway and disregard or dismiss any conflicting opinions.

          Kabuki resident input theater.

    4. I am not a fan of so much outsourcing either, but to really evaluate the costs of in vs out-sourcing, you have to also add the present value of future pension obligations to the in-house folks. The $90k/year city employee will keep costing the city for many years after retirement.

       1. The building official position is slated to be filled. Oddly, although Rick Logan gave plenty of notice so that he’d be around to help familiarize his replacement with the many projects going on, the position has yet to be posted.

          (In the meantime, the Landscape Infrastructure Coordinator job has been listed again with a salary range increase.)

          1. Is the landscape infrastructure coordinator in addition to the arborist? There will now be 2 full-time employees effectively dedicated to the tree ordinance?

             1. The City Arborist is Ed Macy, a part time contracted position.

             2. Landscape Infrastructure Coordinator is the City’s title for the arborist position. No idea if the City also plans to retain Ed Macie.

                Of immediate concern is that John Maximuk, Director of Design, Environment & Construction, is tasked with the roll-out of this super complicated tree ordinance since the staff person hasn’t yet been hired. How does that even begin to make sense?? We’re in the midst of the biggest development boom in Decatur in years and oversight is key. Yet, with no building official and no stormwater engineer, and with the expansion of SAFEbuilt requiring closer than ever monitoring (sorry, but you don’t put a contracted service in charge of signing off on whether or not it’s doing a good job), this is who the City’s assigned it to. There’s already been signs of lax oversight of construction sites in Decatur Heights recently. I’ve also heard from friends about builders who have real concerns over what they’re seeing happening on sites around town. Unfortunately, the builders won’t speak up for fear of repercussions. Just think how potentially disastrous it could be if there’s questionable work occurring on some of the bigger projects underway.

                1. Lax oversight of construction is NOT a new phenomenon in Decatur.

          2. That position will be filled with a SafeBuilt employee, & will never be posted. Peggy Merriss is a contract worker for the city now. Does she even pay into her retirement anymore or does her contract state the City makes all of the contribution to her retirement? How many assistants does she have now? Go find out. You could be in for a shock. Go demand some answers. Next election, throw the current commissioners out & take our city back. How familiar are you with the pending Unified Development Code & what it will mean to you when you want to sell your house? This city administration is on the verge of being worse than our neighbor to the west & the county we live in. The only thing that will be attractive will be the schools & how long will that last with the direction the city government is going?

             1. (George, I’m not sure if by “you” you meant me or you all. I’ll reply, then maybe others will too.)

                I’ve paid pretty close attention for the past several years. I’ve also tried taking my concerns directly to the District 1 Commissioners. While I appreciated that each of them heard me out, I don’t know that it really mattered all that much. (Well, I do think it mattered to Scott Drake who rightfully said it’s important for residents to relay their concerns. As the “new” commissioner, he probably can’t risk bringing up sticky issues unless he can say a number of residents have come to him about the same things.) I watch the City Commission Meetings and listen to all the praise given for presentations and narratives, yet very few in-depth questions are ever asked anymore about the how’s and why’s of decision making (and even more alarming are the things that now skip the public airing process completely, such as the greatly expanded role of SAFEbuilt). Unfortunately, there’s been no signs that things are likely to change anytime soon.

                As for the UDO, I confess I mostly sat out the public input process this time around as it seems to count for so little. I tried tracking down a draft copy on Thurs and learned that staff had only received it along with the 1st request for input just over a week ago. Uh, what??

                1. I should have used “we”, it’s all of us. I have had extensive discussions with our retired building official & have worked with him directly for the 19 years he served the city. Yes, builder fear repercussions & won’t speak up. We, the taxpayers will have to. I feel strongly we need to get rid of our mayor & a a few of the commissioners. They almost mindlessly approve every proposal by the city administration. The building department has been unsettled since the last city employed field inspector was released & the front desk administrator left. 2 1/2 years ago. Logan was left with making all the field inspections & instead of even looking for a qualified field inspector, his superiors simply made it a contract position with SafeBuilt, as well as the office administration position. The city trained several city employees to fill the administrator position but never permanently placed anyone in the position, instead giving it to SafeBuilt. Their next step was to make the plan review position a contract with SafeBuilt. Their were no bids taken for these contracts from any other inspection service, either. We, the citizens had access to Rick Logan. You now have no access, except the front desk administrator or possibly a phone call to the plan reviewer. John Maximuk administers the SafeBuilt contract & has little knowledge of the current code & the intricacies of administering that code in a city where the majority of the homes are over 100 years old. SafeBuilt does not have any knowledge of this city at all. SafeBuilt holds the position of “building official” in several cities in the Metro area, particularly the new ones. The entire building department of Roswell is contracted to SafeBuilt. A big issue with this is any SafeBuilt employee can apply for a better position within SafeBuilt, leaving their current position vacant for another SafeBuilt employee & that city with another assigned contract worker with no experience in that city. Not someone the city hires, but one Safebuilt places in the vacant position. We have already experienced that scenario last summer when Decatur’s SafeBuilt plan reviewer left to become the Roswell building official.

22. ” All the while you will be required to PAY the city for the arborist to visit your lot to confirm your claims. ”

    So you have to use the City’s arborist (didn’t think we had one yet)? And for those concerned about the ethics of the local firms who lobbied for this ordinance, is there anything preventing people from using a consultant from outside Decatur?

    1. I guess you’re referring to me since I’m the only one who’s mentioned that? I’m sure you can use someone outside, like I did before July 7 to remove anything that might become a limiting factor, but knowing so many in Decatur prefer to use local and that there will surely be challenges to the city arborist’s opinion, they will see an uptick. Maybe we should ask Commissioner Drake who he used when he mentioned aloud at a city hall meeting earlier this year that he had just removed a bunch of large trees on his property.

       This is the tip of the iceberg if we don’t rein this in. Besides the unnecessary hassle, look at all of the new fees (pay for city arborist inspection, planting and 3 years’ care and inspections for new trees (not many food trees on their list, so not interested), hugely expensive 3-year escrow account for “boundary” trees, thousands per tree into a tree bank if anything dies or you can’t plant, not to mention adding an aborist to the tax-based payroll (will surely be expanded).

       1. Peter, this is really interesting and sad. It has gotten so complicated to get through a project, soon only the very rich will be able to do it. And if you are the concerned (busybody?) neighbor, with legitimate questions about noise, encroachments, lights and surface water runoff (as I am with projects near us), you are given the run around by the city. instead of helping mitigate problems, the city will stall you, send you to the wrong person, try to confuse you with buzzwords, and tell you that you can bring a civil case after they finish if you can prove they have made conditions worse. (How do you do that?) And to make matters worse, the city and the contractors are blaming the neighbors for delays caused by long backlogs and increasing regulations. So, when the dust settles and the projects finally finish, the adjoining homeowners are not speaking to each other. So much for community building. What a great place to live.

          1. sounds like the City of Atlanta & Dekalb County, doesn’t it? Not like the city we once lived in. 🙁

    2. The city arborist is Ed Macy. He has been the City Arborist for at least 20 years. His decatur position is a 2nd job for him. He is or was a professor at Ga State. a lot of his opinions on the health of trees has been disputed by outside certified arborists. The recent Historical Commision fiasco on a vacant lot on Adams Street is classic. He stated 2 trees were dying when 2 other arborists stated they were healthy trees that would survive another 20-30 years.

24. Yeah, as I said elsewhere, I don’t support this ordinance. My comments were 1) a reaction to what I took to be a questioning of the ethics of the businesses who spoke in favor of the law, and 2) a bit of pushback against a dismissal (by some here) of concerns about the tree stock as frivolous, totally unwarranted, or motivated simply by an aversion to any new development.

    1. I know; it’s good to ask questions to make sure you stay on course. Regardless of the topic, there are obviously some specific concerns about how this process played out that need to be addressed, otherwise repeats will produce compounding problems down the road. I don’t get the impression that City Hall sees that as a priority.

       Yes, some mean well, but there is definitely a control element. Alone, this ordinance will impact residents, but combined with some of the other proposals going on right now, could quickly lead toward more of the housing changes, demographic shifts, increased cost of living, etc. those who mean well are trying to prevent. I’m not sure they’ve thought it through fully.

       Happy Festivus in July everyone!

Comments are closed.