City Commission Set To Vote on Changes to Tree Ordinance to Address “Critical Issues”
Decatur Metro | May 6, 2013On tonight’s Decatur City Commission agenda…trees! The commission is set to vote on two significant changes to the tree ordinance.
According to a letter from City Planning Director Amanda Thompson and City Arborist Ed Macie, the first change would address the issue of healthy trees “being removed from existing single family houses prior to their sale to circumvent the tree ordinance requirements that apply once a demolition permit has been issued.”
The change would apply the current requirements of the tree ordinance to “all R60 and R85 zoned properties that are pending real estate sale or title transfer or have been sold or title transferred in the past 18 months. The terms and provisions of the ordinance shall apply to all areas of a R60 and R85 zoned properties that are pending demolition or have had a dwelling on the site that has been demolished in the past 18 months.”
The second change would address the varying quality of tree preservation plans that are being prepared by builders or surveyors “who are not educated in tree protection practices” and require that all tree preservation plans “be prepared and signed by a certified arborist, landscape architect, or registered forester.”
At a commission meeting a few weeks ago, Ms. Thompson stated to the commission that a larger revision to the tree ordinance was currently being worked on, but it is still a ways off from being completed. City Commissioner Fred Boykin had asked if there were any interim steps that could be taken now to deal with the most pressing issues. These revisions seem to be along those lines.
Latest from Decaturish
Keep your hands off my property.
Amen
+1,000,000
Keep your chainsaw off your trees and you won’t have to worry about it.
touche!
My chainsaw, my trees, my property…not worried at all.
Then again, I guess I should be worried, since property ownership rights are increasingly irrelevant to our government.
Nope. If I want to chainsaw MY trees, that’s my choice and mine alone. I love my trees, and I love other’s trees and generally hope they all live long and healthy lives but that has nothing to do with the gubment deciding things for me in regards to my property. My children don’t belong to the village and neither do my trees.
Clearly there’s no talking rationally about this. For my part, I DO feel like “my” trees “belong to the village.” And I’d understand any of our neighbors being upset if we took any of them down unless absolutely necessary for safety reasons.
On the other hand, if you’ve got your chainsaw cranked up and are desperate to use it, I’ve got a sweetgum that I wouldn’t miss for a minute if it was magically gone one day…
I thought we were talking rationally. Once again, I love trees as much as anyone. I’m a graduate of the National Outdoor Leadership School. I love communing with nature. I also believe in property rights, but the conversation usually turns irrational when others equate that belief with a desire to clear cut. Do I wish my neighbor wouldn’t cut down that tree? Yes, probably so, but as with free speech I will defend his right to do so.
Well, the whole question is about the appropriate use of individuals’ property. Property rights aren’t absolute–they’re socially defined and enforced by government power. If somebody decides they want to pave over their whole lot with asphalt, that goes against the law, because we have zoning laws regarding things like the allowable percentage of impermeable cover–and rightly so. Not letting the property owner pave over his whole lot doesn’t violate his rights, because when he bought the lot, that didn’t entitle him to do anything whatsoever with his property.
We can debate whether the ordinances currently being considered are too extreme and limit too much folks’ ability to do what they wish to do with the trees on their property, but you seem to think that any restrictions at all are an intrusion on a person’s rights.
‘splain me this – but use short words and type slow so I can follow along.
I buy a piece of land
I buy an acorn.
I plant my acorn on my land.
I water my acorn on my land.
I fertilize my acorn on my land.
My acorn sprouts.
I have a seedling.
I nurture and care for the seedling.
The seedling grows.
I continue to nurture the seedling and it grows into a large oak.
I decide that I want to build a boat from my oak.
I buy a saw to cut it down.
I start to saw.
You (or your delegates from the government) come and tell me and tell me that I can’t cut down my tree.
When was it that the tree became yours to tell me what I could and could not do with it?
You’re going to have to live a long time for that oak to grow big enough for a boat!
Also, that seedling may get washed out if the neighbor up the street from you cuts down all their trees and the run-off floods your yard.
P.S.: Plant a balsam tree instead. Grows fast. Kontiki used it.
C’mon Skeptic. As much as you would want it to be that simple, it’s just not. Surely you know that no (wo)man is an island. Surely you know that civil society is built upon a series of social contracts in which we give up a small piece of our freedom in order to improve the quality of life for everyone. Government regulations, while sometime onerous to any particular individual, offer stability and certainty to our daily lives. Your tree may, or may not make it to boat-worthy. Thus we rely upon the idea of reciprocity of advantage when deciding issues of “our” tree canopy. Is there debate to be had over this, any other, issue, as to how far to take this? Sure. Absolutely. That’s the thing. The government is us. We elect people who make these types of decisions, if “they” go too far, “we” can change that.
But to absolutely say that the guvment has absolutely no say over what happens on your property is just, well, unrealistic – right out of some fictional Ayn Rand made up fantasy.
Wait, Ayn Rand’s work is fictional AND made up?
And way too many trees were killed to print her redundant nonsense…
And very, very, very long and boring.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
—John Rogers
Such a tired quote. Say what you want about her philosophy, but I would bet dollars to donuts that Ayn Rand devotees as a whole are FAR more educated, intelligent and successful than the average person.
“I would bet dollars to donuts that Ayn Rand devotees as a whole are FAR more educated, intelligent and successful ” — I would call that bet. In my experience (which is not inconsiderable given that I’m far enough into middle age not to be bothered by the thought), that is far from being the case. Unless you define “successful” strictly in terms of material goods, which I guess you might if you’re an Ayn Rand fan. But you have to take “educated” and “intelligent” out of the equation in order for that generalization to hold up.
I mean “successful” as in doing pretty damn well with “functioning in the real world.” I personally do not know of one single person that is a fan of Ayn Rand (and have actually read her work – I don’t mean people that just talk out their ass to sound like they know something) that is not intelligent and successful at functioning in the real world. They have all been hard working good people that just want the government to leave them the hell alone. Disagree all you want, but generalizing a group of people (which is what I thought Liberals hate) is just intellectually lazy.
“I would bet dollars to donuts that Ayn Rand devotees as a whole are FAR more educated, intelligent and successful than the average person.”
“…generalizing a group of people (which is what I thought Liberals hate) is just intellectually lazy.”
So you can generalize about Ayn Rand devotees compared with the average person, but I can’t disagree with your generalization? That’s not rational.
Being an A. Rand devotee doesn’t make you successful. It means that you are in the subset of people that have the “grit” (anyone watch the Ted talk on PBS last night?) to slog through a long book. There are many of us who are also in that subset (and who think being a Rand devotee is . . .oh I won’t go there). Anyway, if you took the subset of people who have the wherewithal to read Rand (whether they’ve read her or not), and then compared how successful they are, then you’d be comparing apples to apples. And you’d find that in that subset the Rand freaks would NOT be far more successful – I’d bet $100 bills to Revolution Donuts.
Far enough, but I didn’t say that a group was not educated and intelligent. I just said that I bet, on average, one group was MORE….than others.
Of course being an Ayn Rand fan doesn’t MAKE one successful. You are having a real hard time reading what people write today.
Whatev, Walrus.
WB, although I disagree with you often, I believe that you are an educated and generally well-spoken individual. So, are you running out of material? Surely you can do better than “whatev” and the tried and true liberal rallying call “Fox News”.
Sometimes it’s not worth a response. Sometimes there is other work to do. But thanks for the compliment, such that it was. But since I’m here . . . I can read, and in fact, I feel like it’s the people I’m “arguing with” that say one thing, then say they didn’t say it, then say I can’t understand what they’re saying – when in fact, I can scroll right on up there and see that they did, in fact, say what they say they didn’t say. So it’s frustrating and, given this situation, yes, I’m out of material. But there you go – we can’t interpret what we’re saying to each other right here in real time. To say that we are going to be able to definitively interpret the 200+ year old Constitution – particularly when the 50+ guys that wrote it disagreed with its meaning- show you the difficulty of the thing. Where’s John Marshall when you need him?
First off, no, the whole question is NOT “about the appropriate use of individuals’ property.” This question is about trees on my property. Secondly, I do NOT “seem to think that any restrictions at all are an intrusion on a person’s rights.” When you are through trying to suppose what it is I’m saying instead of addressing what it is I actually say, we’ll all be much closer to keeping this rational.
Trees are a much different thing than the amount of permeable surface allowed on my land or the height of my home or the distance my structure is set back from my property line. Whether a tree stays or goes on my land is my decision. It is not my neighbor’s or some government arborist who may or may not have his own agenda. If I want a garden instead of a tree, it’s my perogative. If I want a yellow tree instead of a red tree, that is my perogative. If I want a tree down because I think it threatens my safety, that is my call and I don’t need an official to tell me it’s okay or not. To me, this whole thing is more about control than anything else. A tree coming down, at worst, might affect someone else’s idea of an aesthetic but their sense of what is nice is no more important than another’s.
What if the tree threatens someone else’s safety? Just asking since I’m falling tree-phobic.
I only speak for myself, but if my tree threatens another’s safety then I would take it down. In fact, that’s almost the only reason I would personally take a tree down. I know that many will continue to take my comments as if I’m someone who despises trees, but I’m not. I’m only someone who doesn’t think I have the right to demand that my neighbor keep hers standing if she chooses otherwise.
Wait – you’re ok with regulations on houses but not trees? What about tree houses? Which side do they fall on? And what about the regulations that I have to keep my grass cut and not let it get overgrown? Seems like that would fall under the tree/veg category of your land use code and I should be able to do anything I want with my grass. So are you against the codes that require that my house doesn’t look abandoned by “forcing” me to cut my grass?
More words being put in my mouth, although this time with a sense of humor. I never said I was okay or not okay with any other regulations. I only said they were different.
The great thing about this is here bloggy thing is that we can see exactly what you “said.” You did say it’s not ok (actually “okay”) for the anyone to tell you what to do with your trees. And you listed all the things that the government does regulate regarding homes – and, yes, said they were “different.” So I inferred by “different” you meant “okay.” I fail to see how you can draw such a line. What is the purpose of the building regulations that would be different than the tree regs?
You’re right. You do fail to see how I can draw such a line. Better luck next time.
Secondly, I do NOT “seem to think that any restrictions at all are an intrusion on a person’s rights.” When you are through trying to suppose what it is I’m saying instead of addressing what it is I actually say, we’ll all be much closer to keeping this rational.
Whoah, keep it cool!
Anyway, that’s how it seemed to me, and (as several other commentators have chimed in) it seemed that way to them too. If that’s not what you think, go ahead and say what you do think. You said that the trees are your property/on your property, and for the government to interfere with you cutting down your trees on your property would violate your property rights (“hands off my property!”). I’m just pointing out that property rights don’t generally give you the prerogative to do whatever you wish to with your property–hence the asphalting over your yard example.
I don’t think that preserving trees is purely an aesthetic concern, so the analogy between tree ordinances and other zoning ordinances like e.g., maximum allowable percentage of impermeable cover is IMHO pretty strong. You obviously think otherwise, but I’m not sure why. But even on purely aesthetic grounds, if I let the grass in my yard grow 2 feet tall and put my Honda up on blocks in the front yard, I’d be liable to get ticketed. You’re complaining a lot about people putting words in your mouth, but I think people are just trying to figure out your position and why a tree ordinance would violate your rights and how that relates to all of those other sorts of laws.
How are they different? They absolutely are not different based on the logic you applied in your original post. If you don’t want people putting words in your mouth, then present a logical argument.
As an aside, if anything, you have less of a “right” to “your” tree because of the environmental impact of decimating a tree canopy. A large tree is part of an ecosystem. It is not “your” tree.
Sorry Nellie, but you are flat our wrong. If the tree is on my property, it is my tree. Yes, you and the community may receive from benefits from the tree, but those benefits do not vest any ownership interests. The government may pass regulations that restrict what I can do with my trees, but they are still my trees. By your logic, any privately owned thing that provides a community benefit would no longer be private property.
“Secondly, I do NOT “seem to think that any restrictions at all are an intrusion on a person’s rights.” When you are through trying to suppose what it is I’m saying instead of addressing what it is I actually say, we’ll all be much closer to keeping this rational.”
Your exact words were “Keep your hands off my property.” Not exactly a great stretch of supposition, taken with your other comments, to TOK’s summation.
And if you really think this is all about aesthetics, I don’t even know how to respond to that.
Yes, I think it’s all about aesthetics. Damnit, I can’t find the eye-rolly smiley.
No eye-rolly needed. In your own words, “A tree coming down, at worst, might affect someone else’s idea of an aesthetic but their sense of what is nice is no more important than another’s.”
Are you just trolling or do you really not know what you’re saying and why it’s being taken the way it is?
Yes, I said “A” tree coming down, at worst, might affect someone else’s idea of an aesthetic. That, in no way, means that I think it’s ALL about aesthetics. On a tree by tree basis it is either about taking a sick tree down (which nobody seems to be arguing is a bad thing…me included) or it’s about some sort of aesthetic or convenience like providing more sun or making room for something else. Perhaps it’s even done so kids can play ball in the front yard. The point is that no single homeowner in Decatur can do any real damage by removing trees on their own land other than offending someone else’s sense of aesthetic. You’re not going to affect their ability to breathe. You’re not going to cause flooding. You’re not going to cause drought. This whole ordinance is managing to the exception and that makes it about control, and when it comes to control I prefer to have it when dealing with my own things rather than giving it to the government. By and large, believe it or not, most people are reasonable. Nobody is looking to clear cut Decatur. If they were, we would be having a much different conversation. I seriously doubt that bald is about to become the new green. Our canopy is not in danger and allowing a government lackey to judge whether each and every tree can come down won’t do anything to protect anything. It will only give power to a few to control the reasonable many.
The point is that no single homeowner in Decatur can do any real damage by removing trees on their own land other than offending someone else’s sense of aesthetic.
But if lots of single homeowners remove trees in that way, the collective result of those individual decisions can be non-trivial. A single homeowner paving over all of his yard won’t do any real damage other than offending someone else’s sense of aesthetic, but if we allow people generally to do that it could have non-trivial non-aesthetic results.
TOK – the premise of your argument is absurd as it suggests that if people were allowed to pave over their property, then many people would. But what purpose would people have to do this? Would it be in their best interest? This mentality that if the regulation did not exist, then everyone would conduct that “negative” behavior is unfortunate and dangerous. Just like the tattoo parlor discussion a few months ago where people commented that they are safe because they are “regulated.” No, they are safe because they want to stay in business. Most tattoo parlors go above and beyond what the regulations require because it is in its best interest to do so. Point is, people like you who are so quick to want regulations, fail to stop and ask if they are really necessary. Talk about not functioning in the real world…
“No, they are safe because they want to stay in business.” No, businesses with unsafe food handling or blood/body fluid safety practices frequently continue those practices until cited or shut down. Contact any communicable disease unit of any local health department for tons of recent, local examples.
The City’s 10 year strategic plan, which had tremendous citizen input, had several goals & principles around sustainability including Goal 13: Project and restore natural resources, support environmental health and increase ecological awareness – which encompasses trees. Additionally, the City’s 10 year Sustainability Plan passed by the City Commission last year, which too had citizen input, talks about protecting and enhancing the tree canopy. It is hard to argue protecting trees is a “bad” thing – they increase property value, add beauty to our yards and neighborhoods, absorb CO2, provide a haven for wildlife, improve water quality, combat erosion, provide oxygen, provide noise buffers, lower heating and air conditioning costs in our homes to name just a few. We have to be mindful of maintaining our tree canopy, which b/c so much of our City’s land is residential, means looking at public and private property. This is a time when the benefit to the greater good outweighs individual rights. I have never heard anyone say “Wow, I don’t want to live in that neighbor, they have way too many trees.” People move to Decatur for many reasons, and the look and feel of our City is a big part of it. I look forward to the larger re-vamp of the ordinance as there are many other things I’d love to see addressed, but this is a step in the right direction.
If trees do all these wonderful things, then why would any rational landowner want to cut them down? Or is it that you want to substitute your judgment on the matter for theirs?
Well said. Speaking as someone who reluctantly removed an old oak tree a few months ago, I can tell you that I evaluated all of those things (well most of those things – the provision of oxygen and absorption of CO2 didn’t cross my mind). But, after consulting an arborist, it became clear that tree posed a real threat to my family. The decision to take it down was and should continue to be mine (along with the Mrs. of course).
This whole discussion is about healthy trees. Nobody is interested in restricting the removal of a sick or hazardous tree.
Yes, but isn’t it the case that demolition and new construction often damage trees beyond repair, only to have them become unhealthy and hazardous a few years later? It seems this ordinance would apply where a developer takes out currently healthy trees simply to prevent them from dying and having to be removed post-construction. In my case my builder left a beautiful tree in the front yard, and a few years later I have to pay well over $1,000 to take it down. Bad call by me and the builder. Now, if a city arborist makes the call to leave the tree and it dies, is the city going to pay for it?
Yes, but what if my arborist and the city’s arborist (or whatever govt employee would decide whether I could remove it) disagree about the tree’s health? Am I not allowed to take it down because of a difference of opinion? What happens if the “healthy” tree falls in the next storm and hurts someone or something? I sure as hell don’t have any recourse against the city. The point is that I should be able to make that decision without government interference.
“This is a time when the benefit to the greater good outweighs individual rights. ” What a ridiculous statement. Really? What I choose to do with a tree on my property is none of your business. If I want to grow one, I grow one. If I want to cut one down, I cut one down. You should have no say in the matter, nor should the government.
I have never heard anyone say “Wow, I don’t want to live in that neighbor, they have way too many trees.” Hmm, guess you don’t try to grow your own vegetables? It is actually pretty hard to do in Decatur given the number of trees around.
I think there should be a Portlandia quote here but I can’t think of one at the moment.
I do look forward to defeating this and every tree related ordinance as possible.
PS: I enjoy my wood burning fire place!
If you’re allowed to call Tiffany’s statement ridiculous then I hope I’m allowed to call your statement the same thing. Seriously, how did we get to the point where people are non-ironically saying “I’ll kill all the trees I want!” ???
Please show me where I stated “I’ll kill all the trees I want!” because I don’t see that anywhere in my comment. Ridiculous is making a leap like that.
My point is trees on my property are my business. I have the right to plant them, I have the right to cut them down. It is not like that are endangered or threatened with extinction.
A lot of people around here really need civics 101 and really need to gain better understanding of what property rights, government and civil society actually mean. It is really is depressing how much people choose to ignore the foundational elements of society for some imagined “ME, MINE” ideology.
Not as depressing as when people choose to ignore the Constitution. But, since Obama pays it no regard, I wouldn’t expect those who voted for him to act any differently.
The starting point is that it private property. Any regulation that interferes with the use and enjoyment of property is an infringement on one’s rights. Are some regulations and infringements deemed acceptable or constiutional? Yes. And they should be, especially when the use of one’s private property substantially interferes with another’s use of their property. But, under no circumstance does the fact that private property provide communal benefits give the community the right to claim it as their own. That is called condemnation.
Oh puke, DawgFan. Why do conservatives think they are the only ones that know about the Constitution? The thing is, I will point out again, that this is not a black and white world. The Constitution was actually written to strengthen the power of the federal government – it wasn’t intended to be a document of individual freedoms at any cost. Give me a break. Implicit in the Constitution is the idea of the the social contract – we all give up our personal freedoms to some extent to live in a civil society. I’ll point out that eminent domain is also recognized in the Constitution. Of course the 5th amendment ensures limitations on eminent domain, which gets me back to my point – it’s not black and white. We do surrender some of our freedoms to the government, and we get to decide how much. So don’t go wrapping yourself in the Constitution and get all holier than thou (*cough*Fox*News*cough*) because you think the rest of us don’t “understand” the constitution. Again. Puke.
I actually love it when people try to debate “The Constitution” with me
Why? Because you are the authority? You are the only lawyer on this blog that knows about the constitution? Based on some of your comments on DM over time, you may know it, but you sure as hell don’t respect it. Unless it benefits your client of course…
What is this conservative fetish with saying that libs (and I’m not trying to label J_T, just making a general statement) don’t “respect” the Constitution? This is ridiculous. Does the ACLU not “respect” the Constitution? Wait – don’t answer that yet. I think what you mean is that liberals may not respect YOUR view of what the Constitution means for us today. There was much debate over what the Constitution meant when it was written, its a document that is flexible and able to be interpreted as times change. Just because someone interprets it different than you, doesn’t mean they don’t respect it. This also applies to DF’s Obama comment elsewhere on here.
What Warren said. And don’t worry about the label – if it fits, I must not bit*h!
“What is this conservative fetish with saying that libs…don’t “respect” the Constitution?” — It’s what a lot of people do when confronted with a challenge to their own viewpoint. Instead of sticking to the point, supporting/defending/explaining their own stance (much less addressing specifics of the opposing argument as presented), they start claiming the other person does not understand the issue and/or does not respect the Constitution. (This frequently occurs even in discussions that don’t start out having anything to do with Constitutional issues.) Don’t agree with me? That’s because you don’t know enough. Still don’t agree with me? It must be because you simply don’t understand the Constitution of the United States. OR maybe you do understand the Constitution and simply don’t respect it (cue opening bars of “America the Beautiful” performed by a humming chorus), in which case I will bludgeon you with platitudes until you give up and go away.
I said absolutely nothing about liberals and the constitution. Nothing.
Smalltown, I will go toe to toe with anyone on any point regarding the constitution. Any time. Your point is laughable. I can argue my case, and still believe that someone’s root belief stems from a lack of respect for the constitution.
I’d like in on this toe-to-toe since you’re so damn sure about what I do and don’t respect.
Well I said you respect it when it benefits your clients!
I certainly don’t know you well enough to know your deep seated views on it. My comment to smalltown was not directed at you necessarily. There are those out there that have views on issues that i believe violate the constitution, and those views sometimes stem from a disdain for the document itself. Maybe you are one of those, maybe not. I’d take a debate any day though…
Thanks, Walrus, when I’m jonesing for a good Constitutional debate, you’ll be my first call. Meanwhile, that wasn’t really my point. Anyhow, I wasn’t necessarily referring specifically to you when I wrote it (or at least, not mainly to you), but thanks for underscoring it for me.
You are very welcome, STG!!
Re-read my post. I flat out said that certain regulations and infringements were acceptable and necessary. Not once in this entire thread have I said or implied that any rights were absolute nor have I said that the government couldn’t or shouldn’t impose reasonable, minimal regulations. But, Nellie wasn’t talking about regulations or compromises – she was talking ownership rights in very black and white terms.
And why do you think Fox News is an insult? When I watch cable news, I frequently switch back and forth between Fox News and CNN. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. I am not afraid of what the “other side” has to offer to the conversation. I am sorry that the fact that Fox News gets some things right scares the living shit out of you.
Not once did I say that Fox News scares me like that. Watching CNN and Fox only means that you are getting your news from mostly crappy sources – all the time. What scares me is the misuse of the Constitution. Just because you beat your chest about how much you understand something, doesn’t mean that you do. Just because the other side doesn’t grandstand in such a way, doesn’t mean they lack the understanding. The proof is in the pudding. You make grand statements about the Constitution but in no way prove that you actually understand it – all of it – in fact just the opposite.
“Watching CNN and Fox only means that you are getting your news from mostly crappy sources – all the time”
Which I why I almost never watch them. Still not sure why you felt compelled to bring it up.
“What scares me is the misuse of the Constitution”
Right back at ya.
I’ll be happy to debate Civics 101, property rights, Constitutional rights, etc any day of the week.
“Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance.”
OK, I love trees as much as anyone, but I think there could be problems with the proposed enforcement of the revised ordinance. In pertinent part, the proposed revision says: “The
terms and provisions of the ordinance shall apply to all areas of a R60 and R85 zoned properties that are pending demolition or have had a dwelling on the site that has been demolished in the past 18 months.” The explanation that follows says: “If the city arborist visits a demolition site and sees evidence that trees have been removed this change will allow the removed trees to be included as part of the tree recompense calculations.”
The way it’s worded, the revised ordinance appears to only prohibit such cutdowns on properties where the dwelling is to be demolished; so, if the aim is to save as many trees as possible, there’s a loophole where a dwelling that’s been sold but is not scheduled for demolition could have its trees cut down just prior to sale (e.g., the new owner might want that done as a condition of the sale, or suchlike) with impunity–kinda weakens its purpose. But the bigger problem, as I see it, is that the City could, in effect, be able to come in & penalize a property owner by requiring him to pay to replant trees to “recompense” for trees that were cut down (by someone else!) in such situations before the ordinance that prohibited it even existed. Now, unless I’m missing other parts of the ordinance that provide for a cut-off provision, this smells hinky to me. I’m pretty sure the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws isn’t applicable only to criminal laws (Junderscore, do you know for sure??); I foresee potential legal challenges to the enforcement of this ordinance revision, as written.
I know the City’s intentions are good, but we all know what the road to Hell is paved with…
Hopefully there other lawyers around here who can provide a better answer, but I’m likewise pretty sure that the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws does indeed only apply to criminal laws. Of course, that doesn’t mean there won’t still be the legal challenges to the ordinance that you foresee…
You are correct sir. The USSC has consistently held the prohibition applies only to criminal laws. But, wouldn’t the tree ordinance be criminal in nature if applied to a homeowner who bought the property 17 months ago and have finished construction and received a CO? I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, but those tree recompense requirements only have teeth because they are conditions for obtaining a permit.
It’s been so long since I’ve done any criminal law, so I’m glad you knew! But like Dawg points out, if someone were to disobey the ordinance, couldn’t they be subject to penalties (therefore making the ordinance quasi-criminal in nature)? This just seems like a hasty, stop-gap effort to tighten this ordinance, when it would be better if they’d taken their time & put a little more thought into it. The construction genie ain’t goin’ back in the bottle at this point.
Now you’re asking questions that would require me to actually think and to read the ordinance we’re talking about…
didn’t the city get lots of input on their website on this issue last year that was pretty much evenly split regarding making the tree ordinance stronger?
The polarized public opinion is the clearest indication of what incredibly tricky territory this is, with respect to regulation. Yes, trees on private property are private property — but if you cut down all your trees it has an adverse impact on me, even if I don’t live next door to you.
IMO, we don’t want developers to be able to knock down unlimited numbers of healthy trees just to make life easier for themselves and/or their landscape designers. At the same time, an individual homeowner should be able to take down even a healthy tree if they want to add a room to their house or let some light into an existing room or grow a few tomatoes or whatever darned thing they want to do. In any case, I don’t see how it’s possible to codify who can remove which or how many trees when and where, without oppressing homeowners and creating yet another ordinance for which people are constantly seeking variances.
If the objective is to preserve and enhance the tree canopy, then we should quit obsessing about trees and focus on the forest. Let me cut down a healthy tree in my yard if I want to, but give me an irresistible incentive to replace it–not necessarily in my yard, if that’s not practicable, but within some scientifically-determined radius that results in a net no-change or improvement of the canopy in my immediate vicinity. I’m willing to bet many or even most Decatur residents would be happy to swap tree for tree with the only incentive being some gracious guidance about what to plant and where.
The City needs to resist the impulse to approach everything from a posture of restriction, and think about incentives instead. Obviously, permit fees and fines generate revenue. Carrots cost more than sticks because they work better.
You make some good points, but when you propose one set of rules for homeowners and yet another for developers, I have to question your motives. Why is it OK for a homeowner to cut down every tree on his lot, but not OK for the developer to do the same? The end result is the same. If this is only about the trees, the same rules should apply to both the homeowner and developer (who owns the property BTW).
I never said or implied that I think it’s OK for anybody to cut down every tree on a lot. I’m not proposing sets of rules at all. The point I’m making is that the range of circumstances and conditions is so vast and variable that trying to achieve the desired result through rules (in the form of restrictions about who can do what with their trees) is a fool’s errand. I offered a couple of examples of how situations differ according to my own opinion. The fact that there are so many varying opinions underscores my point.
By the way, I do think we should treat developers and resident homeowners differently in terms of what we want them to do because they have different agendas and priorities. Most developers don’t live here, will not be here to enjoy or endure the long-term results of their own actions, and do have responsibilities to themselves/their partners/their bankers to do things as cost-effectively as possible. Obviously, the developer owns the property while he/she is developing it but we cannot and should not expect them to be invested in our community in all the ways and at all the levels that resident homeowners are. So we should pay closer attention to what they do and how they do it.
But again, I’m not proposing rules. I’m advocating (1) we look for more holistic ways to manage our urban forest than by obsessing about individual trees, and (2) think in terms of carrots instead of sticks.
Decatur’s slogan will be changing to: Decatur- the choice is clear cut.
What percentage of trees in this town are nearing the end of their lives? Every time it rains there are houses getting clobbered and it’s a miracle nobody has been killed.
Someone was killed in his bed in westchester maybe 10 years ago when a tree fell on his home. Had tnice wife and wo very young children. Very sad indeed.
We’re all somewhere along the spectrum of individual rights vs. common good. I don’t know anyone who wants no individual autonomy at all. Likewise, I don’t know anyone who thinks that owning property means that we own our own individual part of air space all the way up to the outer Milky Way. IMHO, Decatur, an intown community with lots of common space like sidewalks, streets, parks, events, community buildings, parking lots, school grounds, etc. doesn’t seem like a good choice for folks who value individual property over all else but hey, we’re an eclectic group.
Re trees: Intellectually, I know they are important ecologically and aesthetically. Emotionally, I’ve been scarred by all the tree-on-house/car-occupants-killed events since I’ve lived in Atlanta. I did know the Westchester family in which the father was killed by the falling tree. The mom was a co-leader of the reconstituted PTA at Clairemont Elementary after it merged with Westchester. It was horrible. I see trees as both necessities and threats.
I also see trees as both individual property and common entities. A property owner buys, plants, and maintains them. But their roots and branches do not stay nicely within property lines and can threaten others, raise sidewalks/roads, prevent runoff, make Decatur attractive, provide shade, block sun. Sometimes a whole tree enters common or someone else’s property and causes damage and/or injury. Their branches and leaves go up above individual properties and exist in common air space. The carbon dioxide they consume and the oxygen they provide are shared by all (hope I have my biology correct!). Their decay benefits the common soil but also attracts termites. Cutting them down provides benefits, risks, and disadvantages to both the individual property owner and the community.
All this to say that I don’t think the issue is simple. The answer must balance both property rights and common good.
“Decatur, an intown community with lots of common space like sidewalks, streets, parks, events, community buildings, parking lots, school grounds, etc. doesn’t seem like a good choice for folks who value individual property over all else”
So, conservatives need not apply? Maybe I am taking your statement out of context, but they may be one of the more outlandish ones I have read on DM. I value all of the community aspects of Decatur. But, I also value my individual rights (yours too). Those too things can and do coexist. I think it is somewhat ironic that Decatur has one of the most diverse and mature tree canopies in metro Atlanta, and it got that way without government interference. But, now, all of the sudden, we are going to live in a barren wasteland unless we immediately implement a tree ordinance with infringes on the rights of individual homeowners. Why can’t we trust that the residents who moved here value the trees? Yes, some will get cut down. However, others will be planted.
Everyone can apply, just don’t be surprised by what you get! Decatur is not shy about its values–they are right in its published strategic plan. Personally, I’d be ok living on a piece of land with no trees and no trees able to fall on my land–that’s what I had when I lived out West. But not going to happen in Decatur. Agree that coexisting is possible. In fact, that was my point–not easy issues, no simple answers, balance needed.
Simmah don nah. Reading the whole of AHID’s post, it’s clear beyond any manner of doubt that she understands the reality of competing interests. If ever there was an assessment that’s inclusive in a meaningful way (in that reality is complex and, within complexity, are infinite issues, components and characteristics that different people choose to value and champion), she pretty much nailed it. That’s the kind of reasoned inclusion I expect from Decatur — a genuine understanding that community never presents either/or propositions.
Scott, I completely agree that AHID understands and articulated the complexity of the issue as well as, if not better, than anyone else here. However (and keeping in mind that I acknowledged I was taking the statement out of context), the statement bothered me. Although I think she meant it as an observation and not as some sort of directive, the statement implies that I somehow consented to ceding my rights (and the right/responsibility to speak up and defend those rights) by choosing to live in Decatur.
I know plenty of people who consider themselves conservative, who do NOT think individual property rights must always prevail over all other considerations.
I don’t know ANY conservatives who always think individual property rights prevail over all other considerations.
Don’t tell me, tell Dawgfan.
He beat me to it, but I was going to say the exact same thing.
But, I do know some liberals who think that the common good should ALWAYS trump individual rights.
Well, I know a lot of liberals, and I don’t know ANY that believe that common good should ALWAYS trump individual rights. So – there. Obfuscation. Nothing proven, except that we all know all kinds of people and they all have individual opinions. The world works in shades of gray.
This libertarian is pretty close…
…to being a hundred twenty years too late.
Damned right.
One of the functions of government is to provide a means to enforce or encourage policies which benefit the majority of the population/citizens. While most of us would agree that the aggregate tree population – most of it on private property – is a good thing for most people and thus a good thing as a community to agree upon, I don’t think we can so easily agree the means of enforcement is ideal.
I have a tremendous amount of trees on my property. I can’t grow ANY grass in my front yard because of all the trees. I have more trees in my yard than my closet five neighbors put together. I have no interest, nor will I, ask the government for permission to cut some down if I choose to do so. Period.
Hey, this is Bossypants speaking. Let’s stipulate, for the sake of discussion, three things:
(1) We each and all have a vested interest in safeguarding the environmental, economic and aesthetic benefits of our urban tree canopy.
(2) Every individual tree is not irreplaceably precious.
(3) Codifying restrictions on the use and occupation of private property should be a last resort, used only when there is no other way to guard against direct harm to the public and/or community.
I know everybody doesn’t agree with these premises, but the extreme, boil-it-down sides of the issue have been well aired now. I’d really like to hear more perspectives on how we can realistically and effectively address this complicated situation.
I concur wholeheartedly. Personally, I prefer government, big corporations, busybodies, and anybody else to stay out ma bidness. But I’m cool with that position knowing that I take the welfare of the larger community into consideration when making decisions on subjects that are often regulated. My problem is that not everyone does this, so I tend to accept a certain level of regulation to at least ensure we’re not all trampling over each other in the course of our individual pursuits.
Back to something you said earlier, I much prefer incentives and benefits over prohibitions and punishments. The loss of any one tree may suck but it’s not a travesty. What matters for all of us is overall canopy so we should be making it easy, even beneficial for people to plant trees, support municipal tree programs and/or contribute to tree planting efforts.
Make planting and preservation the more logical, more desirable choice. Then, more often than not, it will be.
“so I tend to accept a certain level of regulation to at least ensure we’re not all trampling over each other in the course of our individual pursuits”
I think we all agree on that point, but the devil is in the details. Where exactly do we draw the lin?. Someone telling me that I can’t decide what to do with a tree in my yard is unacceptable. Creating incentives to ensure the overal canopy seems reasonable. Certain, minimal development standards may be appropriate. But, this all started (or at least I got involved) after Tiff stated “This is a time when the benefit to the greater good outweighs individual rights”.
Can we get back to best desserts for the money? Are there any issues around individual property rights and uncommonly good desserts?
BTW, what was the outcome of the meeting last night anyway?
Passed unanimously. I believe Commissioner Boykin wanted folks to know that the ordinance only kicked in if you were to demolish your home, not if you sold it. Perhaps he can clarify.
Free Westchester.
(because no long DM thread would be legitimate without it)
Vote Cranky.
So the City Commission voted to pass the Tree Ordinance patch last night. There were several folks there in support and three spoke in favor during the public comment portion of the agenda. The “patch” is exactly that – designed to fill a loophole that allowed for healthy trees to be removed from existing single family houses prior to their sale to circumvent the tree ordinance requirements for a demolition permit. If you don’t think that is an issue, you should drive around Oakhurst to see what some developers, who don’t necessarily live here or may not have the City’s best interest at heart, have done/are doing – lots are being clear cut or close enough to it. The second part of the patch deals with the issue around the quality of tree protection plans and that currently they can be prepared by builders or surveyors who are not educated in tree protection practices. This can lead to greater tree loss on the construction site. Goal here is to ensure that the trees that homeowners/developers want to keep on the property are kept healthy with minimal impact from the construction or that trees that will be impacted greatly are dealt with properly. Tree damage can take years to show, so having a qualified person to oversee/develop the protection plan is key. The revised language simply better defines who is qualified to develop the plan.
Several posters have noted they prefer incentive based approaches. And I agree that often a “carrot” works best and I hope to see programs/activities that follow the unified land development ordinance that the City is tackling this fall that look to do this. But sometimes a “stick” is called for, as is the case to stop the loophole noted above. Over the last 10 years (roughly) we’ve gone from a 50% canopy to about 45% – there are many reasons for this including the fact we have a very mature tree canopy and trees are reaching the end of their lives. This underscores that if we want to preserve this canopy we need to take actions now to ensure future generations enjoy the beauty and benefit of these trees. This patch impacts a small % of our trees but to me, every one does count. I hope to see a mix of programs/incentives/community outreach following the new unified land development ordinance – things that everyone can rally around. For those interested, read the relevant sections to this thread as currently written on http://www.municode.com. Look for Sections 86-82 through 86-86 (I think this is inclusive but do not swear!).
PS, Melrose I do have a garden – or more aptly put a “yarden” since I have a few plots and pots spread about my front and back yards (yes due to the shade from my trees and my neighbors ;-). And I am ok with that). I’ll even make you some of my homemade salsa once my tomatoes and jalapenos come in. It’s ok that you think my statements are ridiculous, we can still be neighborly. It is Decatur after all.
Very good post, thank you.
But keep your hands off my property.
Sorry, just couldn’t resist.
Tiff: sounds like closing the loophole is a good idea. The part of your statement I found ridiculous is “This is a time when the benefit to the greater good outweighs individual rights” w/regards to what I can do to trees on my property.
Believe it or not, I’m as neighborly as they come (secret DM identity not withstanding).
This has been very entertaining with all these impassioned arguments about the Constitution and Aym Rand but getting back to the topic, in the City of Decatur, anyone in R60 or R85 can still clear cut their property as long as they don’t apply for a permit to demolish their house.
Methinks it’s time to close this thread.
+1
No where did I say that this thread should stay open, or that only people like me know it and respect it. How dare you?
Alert the commission!
2 properties in Lenox Place had trees removed today!
No idea who what or why, but that doesn’t matter when a mob mentality is in action ^_^