Planting seeds of hope that Atlanta will reconsider its hollow tree law
On June 16, Atlanta City Council members voted to approve a new tree protection ordinance, which, despite its title, still fails to protect trees on developing properties in our city.
Atlanta suffers excessive tree loss because builders cut more trees than they need to. Since 2001, paying fees to cut trees has not worked to deter excessive tree cutting. Fees to cut trees have simply become a cost of doing business, and clear-cutting has increased.
The city realized a new tree ordinance was needed, and after eight years of data collection, community input and two years of task force meetings, Atlanta’s Department of City Planning finally presented a new tree ordinance in January that balanced preserving higher-value “priority trees” with developers’ rights to build for residential lots. More tree protections were added in April.
In early May, just weeks before the council vote, developers sidestepped years of collaborative process and went directly to Mayor Andre Dickens.
They asked him to remove every word that required tree preservation, including the single-family tree protections previously approved by the Department of Law — and so he did.
On June 16, the City Council voted forward the new tree ordinance, with all tree protections removed.
Three things to know about this ‘empty’ ordinance
Some have claimed the “empty” ordinance is better, but look at the fine print:
- A “tree density” requirement sounds nice, but it doesn’t actually require saving trees because the requirement can be met 100% by planting new trees.
- Illegal tree cutting may be reduced on homeowner properties, but that won’t save trees in developments because those trees can still be cut legally.
- Recompense fees were raised, but then fee “caps” were added so that no matter how many trees are cut, the fee won’t be over a fixed amount. The more trees cut, the cheaper it costs per tree. Fee caps only apply if some trees are retained. However, retaining trees is optional. The percentage is minimal, and since “priority trees” were eliminated, small, lower-value trees can be saved at property margins while mature oaks and hardwoods can be cleared at the cheaper rate. Further, trees in stream buffers count as “preserved” even though these trees can never be cut anyway because of local regulations, so on many properties, clear-cutting per usual — without saving one tree more than they do today — will actually allow developers to pay even less than they do today. Even the full fee rate still gives the city barely 50% of fair market value for trees lost.
After years of city staff and stakeholder work, developers undercut the process at the last minute.
They exaggerated and misinformed city officials and the public on how the tree ordinance would actually work, and they got everything they wanted – no tree preservation, no compromise and clear-cutting trees on all properties is still an affordable cost of doing business.
Credit: Hand
Saving trees and building great developments can go hand-in-hand
Atlanta’s citizens pay the price of tree loss with hotter temperatures, high stormwater costs, altered neighborhoods and poor air quality that harms the health of children, elderly people and others. The American Lung Association dropped Atlanta’s air quality grade from “C” to “F” in just the past year. Over 70% of Atlanta’s trees stand in residential areas, meaning an ordinance that makes it easier to cut down trees will only exacerbate the city’s air quality problems.
Credit: Hand
Despite voting forward the new tree ordinance, Council members have expressed misgivings. As of this writing, several Council members and Dickens have stated publicly that “more work needs to be done.”
But it must be said — the work has been done. And the question remains how did all those years of work get undone, barely days before the vote?
From process to result, what happened to the tree protection ordinance is just plain wrong, and it needs to be fixed — not talked about, further studied, delayed, postponed and swept under the rug.
A tree protection ordinance must protect trees. Simple.
Choosing between trees and development is a false choice. Some homebuilders save trees today using common sense design, adjusting house footprints and driveways, using adaptive construction methods and protecting tree roots under staging areas.
We can build wonderful homes — from affordable to luxury and everything in-between — and still save more of our best trees. We know how to do it.
A tree ordinance that includes tree preservation will not reduce our housing stock — it will make it even better, more diverse in style and price and even more affordable.
This hot summer, let’s make lemonade from this tree ordinance lemon. Please support Dickens and all our City Council members in immediately restoring the single-family tree preservation standard and to support other well-crafted tree protections that ensure our city and our trees will grow together.
Kathryn Kolb, Howard Katzman, and Chet Tisdale lead the Citizens Group for a Better Atlanta Tree Ordinance. They can be reached at cityintheforest.org@gmail.com or ctisdalejr@gmail.com.
