 |
|
Home ·
Amendment ·
Summary · FAQs ·
About Us |
Tree protection referendum a poor reflection on councilBy Tonyaa Weathersbee It shouldn't have come to this. Last year the Jacksonville City Council passed a tree protection law that had all the bite of a salamander's gums. Instead of enforcing the former law, which among other things, forbade homebuilders from removing trees with trunks 3 feet in circumference or larger, the council got creative. It decided to enforce the law, but only for trees 6 feet in circumference or larger. Which means that most trees not well on their way to being Treaty Oak size will wind up supplying mulch instead of shade. But the ordinance itself wasn't as worrisome as the way the council came up with it. Even people who were appointed to gauge what the public thought about how trees should be protected weren't in on meetings with builders -- meetings with notices posted demurely on City Hall bulletin boards. They weren't in on the ultimate decision -- a decision weighed more toward the convenience of homebuilders than the character of communities. So now, Citizens for Tree Protection Inc. wants people who don't have political futures to consider to weigh in on how trees should be protected in Jacksonville. It has gathered more than 31,000 signatures to put the question directly to voters on Nov. 7. I don't like this. Not because stronger tree protection laws aren't needed. They are. Too many trees are being reduced to sprawl stubble to make way for doppleganger-like developments, to places where an SUV in the driveway suffices for a landmark instead of a sycamore. I even know of some homeowners who now wonder whether a few trees in their backyard would have slowed the sun from blanching the paint. What I don't like, though, is the fact that a referendum is needed at all. That to get a tree protection law unadulterated by special interests, people must rely on referendums instead of their elected representatives. It shouldn't work that way. This is the second time Jacksonville has been through this. In 1987, a group of people were sick of seeing billboards proliferate like Australian pines in South Florida. So they gathered enough signatures to ask voters to ban any new billboards. The voters agreed. But although such referendums are rare, they trouble me because they usually are the ultimate response to the public's goodwill being savaged by people who were elected to uphold it. They reflect the fairness and the failures of democracy. This tree ordinance, for example, came after the city's Landscape Commission conducted public workshops last year. The purpose, or so everyone thought, was to gauge how people -- homebuilders, tree farmers, environmentalists and residents -- wanted trees to be preserved. The commission was even supposed to serve as experts during the council's committee meetings on the ordinance. But Bill Brinton, an attorney who chaired the commission and co-founded the tree protection amendment drive, says that never happened. What happened instead was that special interests made a farce of the democratic process. Now certainly, homebuilders and developers have a right to lobby council representatives just like everyone else. They pay lots of taxes, and I thank 'em for it. Certainly they should have a say as to whether a particular law will impede their livelihood. Many argue, in fact, that people will pay more for new homes if builders have to work around or replace every tree. They may be right. But after the workshops have been held and after the arguments made, wealth and influence shouldn't turn the process into some big ol' pretend game for those who couldn't contribute to campaigns but who cared enough to contribute their time. If the referendum passes, maybe it means people care more about protecting the value of their home in the long run than getting it on the cheap in the short run. Maybe it means more people believe that a bargain house in a treeless subdivision isn't worth sacrificing the natural surroundings. But then again, it may not mean that people care about losing trees as much as they care about losing their voice. May mean that the majority of the council could be out of touch with their constituents. Or their consciences. Or both. So it's good that citizens can go the referendum route. It's just bad when they have to. |
|
Home ·
Amendment ·
Summary · FAQs ·
About Us |
© 2000 by Citizens for Tree
Preservation, Inc. |