On June 16, the Atlanta City Council passed a new Tree Protection Ordinance (TPO) that has been met with widespread criticism for failing to protect trees on developing properties across the city.
Despite its title, the ordinance does not effectively address the significant tree loss resulting from urban development practices.
Over 70 percent of Atlanta’s trees are found on private residential properties, placing them at risk as homes are demolished, larger properties are subdivided, and densely forested lots are cleared for new developments.
This phenomenon is leading to a dramatic decline in the city’s tree population, contributing to environmental issues and compromising community aesthetics.
Data indicates that Atlanta is losing approximately half an acre of its trees every day, raising concerns about the sustainability of the city’s urban canopy.
The city’s goal aims for a 50 percent tree canopy; however, recent trends show that the current canopy level has dipped below that mark, severely jeopardizing future potential for urban greenery.
While planting new trees can be beneficial, experts suggest that the existing conditions limit opportunities for growing large canopy trees.
Studies show that newly planted street trees are unlikely to fill the ecological roles played by mature oaks and hardwoods established in older, nutrient-rich soils.
The issue of tree preservation in Atlanta has been a topic of focus for several years, with extensive data collection, multiple sets of consultations, and numerous community meetings aimed at developing a comprehensive tree protection strategy.
In January, the Planning Department presented a TPO that incorporated modest preservation standards specifically for single-family residential developments.
This earlier draft attempted to strike a balance by prioritizing the protection of high-value “priority trees,” ensuring that while developers retained the ability to build, they would also conserve significant tree resources.
However, in late April, shortly before a council vote, the situation took an unexpected turn.
Responding to mounting community demands for broader tree protections, the Planning Department introduced additional protections for commercial and multifamily properties, a move that ultimately lacked proper vetting.
In early May, some developers reportedly bypassed years of collaborative efforts by directly appealing to Mayor Dickens, requesting the removal of key tree preservation requirements from the ordinance.
Subsequently, all proposed tree preservation measures were stripped from the TPO, effectively undermining years of stakeholder input and community engagement.
Critics accused development lobbyists of misleading city officials and the public with exaggerated claims that preserving trees would deter builders from Atlanta and threaten affordable housing production.
Official statements claimed that enforcing tree preservation could jeopardize as much as 40 percent of affordable housing units, a claim later debunked as the project in question would have been exempt from such restrictions.
By May 13, the TPO released was devoid of any legislated standards for tree preservation, allowing developers to continue clear-cutting trees with minimal cost implications or overall ecological considerations.
Following the June 16 vote, the Mayor’s Office and certain council members portrayed the amended TPO as an improvement, suggesting it offered enhanced tree protection.
However, critics contended that these claims were largely unfounded, emphasizing that the ordinance did not impose any requirements for protecting trees on developments of any type.
The definition of “tree density,” while superficially appealing, does not necessitate the preservation of existing trees; rather, it allows developers to satisfy requirements solely through the planting of new trees.
The ordinance does introduce an increase in recompense fees from $30 to $140 per diameter inch for trees cut down, but critics argue that this still falls short of an equitable valuation compared to the market cost to plant new trees.
Evidence from the last two decades suggests that merely increasing fees does little to incentivize tree preservation when cutting costs remain low.
Moreover, the ordinance includes “caps” on recompense fees for infill lots and subdivisions, allowing developers to incur less cost for cutting more trees.
This fee structure could enable developers to qualify for the cap by saving only minor trees while still being allowed to clear-cut larger, more valuable trees.
The fee cap, which is about $3,000 for an R-4 lot, represents a minimal fraction of the value of homes in Atlanta, thus further reducing the cost burden for developers.
Additionally, certain trees located in stream buffers would count as preserved, despite the fact that these trees cannot be legally removed, misleadingly inflating the number of trees ‘saved’.
Even as the city aims to promote more tree planting, the inherent difficulties of establishing new trees in degraded soils mean that they cannot replace the crucial ecological benefits provided by mature trees.
City officials have pointed to increases in fines for illegal tree removals and the registration of professional arborists as small steps toward improving tree protections.
However, this does little to address the overarching issue of legal tree removals during development, where no mandatory preservation standards are imposed.
While an increase in funding for the low-income senior assistance program to $400,000 is indeed a positive development, it originated from community advocacy rather than developer influence.
Critics raised concerns over claims made by the City Attorney, suggesting that new tree preservation standards were deemed unconstitutional without adequate basis, emphasizing that the initial standards had previously been deemed lawful.
The process surrounding the TPO has led to questions about the influence developers wield over city officials, given the speed with which they circumvented the consultative process to achieve their desired outcome.
This raises larger questions about governance and accountability and the apparent prioritization of developer interests over community needs for greener urban environments.
The ramifications of the TPO go beyond mere tree loss; they contribute to broader environmental crises facing Atlanta, including exacerbated air pollution and urban heat issues, which adversely affect the health of city residents.
The American Lung Association notably downgraded Atlanta’s air quality from a “C” to an “F” earlier this year, serving as a reminder of the urgency needed in addressing these intertwined crises.
Despite the passage of the June 16 TPO, certain council members expressed doubts regarding the process and outcomes, suggesting a strong need for further amendments to ensure adequate tree protection measures are reinstated.
Looking forward, community advocates are pushing for the swift reintroduction of legitimate tree preservation standards that were initially laid out in the Planning Department’s January draft.
The sentiment among many Atlantans is clear; they wish to see their city leaders strive for a balance that accommodates both development needs and environmental stewardship.
To combat the ongoing tree loss crisis, it is essential for elected officials to unify efforts around a TPO that genuinely preserves the valuable tree canopy that defines Atlanta as a city in a forest.
The narrative that posits a dichotomy between trees and development overlooks the possibility of harmonious solutions that balance ecological integrity with urban growth.
Historical evidence shows that thoughtful development can coexist with tree preservation, promoting a healthier, more sustainable urban landscape.
In an environment where developers are encouraged to take a more responsible approach to land use, it is possible to construct quality homes while still conserving Atlanta’s prized trees.
Ultimately, the ongoing dialogue surrounding the TPO underscores the necessity for local government to prioritize the voices of citizens over development lobbyists when it comes to essential policies affecting urban nature.
As citizens urged their leaders to take decisive action, it becomes increasingly important for Mayor Dickens and the City Council to reconsider the recent amendments to the TPO.
Only through comprehensive tree protection measures can Atlanta hope to rebuild and sustain its tree canopy for future generations, emphasizing the vital roles that trees play in urban environments.
image source from：saportareport
