At the conclusion of tonight’s meeting, the Decatur City Commission unanimously voted to postpone a vote on changes to the tree ordinance, which they had previously said would be taken up for a final vote at the beginning of March.
Commissioner Patti Garrett, who proposed the motion to delay the vote, also added that the City Commission would hold a work session on the original vote day in March as the next step forward.
In related news, the commission also voted unanimously to declare February 21st Arbor Day in Decatur.
Good move City! I am glad that this process has slowed down a bit and more thought and voices can now be placed into the process. I am not a big proponent of meeting after meeting but in this case there is clearly a need for some type of update with a whole lot of common sense applied to it. There were some great comments, suggestions and passions that kicked up the fire storm from several weeks ago and it is nice to see that the Commission understand real changes or ordinance could not have been crafted by the March deadline. I hope that some of the public and private groups that discussed coming together can represent a more open minded, realistic take on tree preservation.
Much of this I still believe should come down to one’s own personal choice about what they do with their own property. My opinion regarding preservation should involve a more grass roots or boots on the ground approach rather than legislative but that is only one person’s opinion and we all know what people say about opinions “ we all have one”. I am just glad to see the Commission listening a bit on this one and realize that the impact was greater than just trees.
I wonder if this update should not come out when the UDC does?? Are they not very similar in nature and would it not make sense to incorporate this into those discussions/meetings? The majority of people’s problems with the removal of trees came from the re-development of single family homes if I am not mistaken??
I have several thoughts on the tree ordinance that I’ll just throw out there:
1. I wonder if the annexation of the Methodist Children’s Home property, which is significant in size and low in tree canopy, lowered our canopy percentage in the most recent assessments. Let me put it this way – if the backers of this ordinance are using data that reflects changes in our borders moreso than changes in our canopy, in order to create a sense of urgency, then god help them.
2. I have a problem with setting a community-wide percentage goal if that is going to be applied on an individual basis. I have no problem with setting a goal, monitoring where we stand, and organizing planting festivals and so forth to achieve the goal.
3. If we are going to set a community-wide percentage goal, it should be realistic – benchmarked against communities of similar characteristics (age, population density, geography, etc.). Plucking a number out of thin air is not something that everyone is going to get on board with. Let’s get something meaningful that we can relate to.
4. The decline in the city’s tree canopy closely parallels the institution of tree ordinances here. Look it up. I know correlation is not causation, but I’m just saying. Sometimes these complicated regulations don’t lead to the results intended.
5. As I said in another comment, if you take the big picture view, it may be the case that our current/recent tree canopy coverage is actually abnormally high due to all the water oaks that were planted when this “streetcar suburb” was initially developed. Maybe Decatur was meant to be more like 25% coverage, and data going back 500 years would support this. We’ll never know, but food for thought.
6.
7. Can the historic districts that already have tree ordinances be exempted from whatever the commission decides to pass? Here in the MAK we’ve got a tree ordinance that appears to be functional and acceptable – why does ours have to change?
8. One of my pet issues around here is the upcoming budget crunch that the city faces, due mainly to the school enrollment explosion but also the recent flurry of facility building. Everything the commission does from here on out needs to factor this in. So I would suggest that the city find every possible way to avoid being involved in the assessment of tree health. One tree falling on one house will be a multi-million dollar lawsuit and a problem that will blow up the budget.
Strike #1 – when looking at Google Maps, the Children’s Home is included in the borders, but apparently that annexation has not actually happened. I thought it had been annexed, but turns out it was only discussed. My bad.
And, “there is no number six.”
That’s Number Wang!
There is no Rule 6.
TeeRuss – Good work. These are questions/thoughts that ought to be considered. The answers may or may not change a single person’s opinion, but they are significant and relevant and thus deserve some attention.
Another issue that I have seen only a couple people mention on this site and few people discuss in general: the impact of the proposed ordinance on our downtown development goals. What impact will this have on reaching our goals that pertain to downtown, including greater commercial options and greater household income diversity?
In my mind this relates back to your your point #2. Higher density commercial/mixed use parcels have no business being required to have a 50% canopy. No developer will build downtown on small commercial properties and include 50% canopy. So then you are just using the canopy requirement to extract more fees (going into the tree bank). In doing that you are either driving up the cost to the end users of the development, thus hampering the ability to provide increased income diversity, or you are scaring away a good portion of developers who will simply go develop elsewhere.
We should have high-functioning sustainable buildings downtown. But you can’t increase densities and achieve all that we want to achieve if you try to plant trees on half of our small commercial lots. And if you say, well, then the developer will have to pay more to the tree bank, that is simply the type of attitude that will not foster the type of development that provides the elements we desire.
Geoff, you reminded me of one other point – the recently updated ordinance for Accessory Dwelling Units, which was a priority of the strategic plan as a means to foster housing price diversity and allow aging in place. This canopy coverage stuff will effectively destroy that option for many property owners, and so it directly contradicts another priority for our community.
I hope the City Commission has the persistence and vision to pass a tree/canopy ordinance and not delay much longer than they already have.