 |
|
Home ·
Amendment ·
Summary · FAQs ·
About Us |
Standing up for the treesBy Tonyaa Weathersbee Someone had to do it. Someone had to stick up for the trees. And the people. Last week, amid the symbolic shade of Hemming Plaza's oak trees, some activists who decided they were not going to shrug off being stiffed by the city's new-and-unimproved tree-protection ordinance put their passion to work. They started a petition drive to put trees in the city's charter. If 20,941 people sign the petition, an amendment that would require residential and commercial builders to either spare or seek special permission to cut down trees that are 12 inches or larger in diameter could appear on the ballot next fall. Right now, only trees that are twice that size and larger are protected. "It [the petition drive] was an observation of a disconnect between what the public desires in the way of environmental protection laws and what a special-interest group has been able to do through intense lobbying," said Bill Brinton, an attorney who, along with other members of Citizens for Tree Preservation, is pushing the petition. Brinton, who said that the group is already receiving an enormous amount of response from the public, should know. Last year, he chaired the city's Landscape Commission as it came up with a simple remedy for protecting trees: enforce the old ordinance that, get this, protected trees that were 12 inches or larger in diameter. But builders and real estate representatives cried foul. They said that protecting trees that small would be too costly and would make it tough for many people to afford a new home. So the City Council listened to them and blew off the commission and the community groups that fought for stronger tree protections. Perhaps it might have been tougher for them to blow off Gary Moll. Moll is vice president for urban forestry with American Forest, a Washington, D.C.-based conservation group. Moll's group has analyzed the impact of tree loss in about a half dozen cities, mostly using aerial and satellite data. For the most part, he said, urban trees are in peril. And much of that loss is because of urban and suburban growth that treats trees as if they are impediments, rather than assets, to communities. Shocking. "There are a lot more costs that come with removing trees than with keeping them," Moll said. "The costs that come with the stormwater and the erosion, the increased flooding risks, all of that comes when too many trees are gone "Nowhere does that happen more than in new developments." Moll also said that while it was good that Citizens for Tree Preservation were working to put trees in the city's charter, it should also urge that modernized data be kept regularly on the status of the city's tree canopy. "We've started with canopy measuring, with aerial photographs to show the dangers [of tree loss]," Moll said. "Such information should be used in planning departments, as part of the comprehensive plan." In the meantime, though, backers of the drive should stick to it. Because this issue isn't simply about preserving trees, but about preserving people's health. Preserving people's lives. And preserving people's voices. |
|
Home ·
Amendment ·
Summary · FAQs ·
About Us |
© 2000 by Citizens for Tree
Preservation, Inc. |