Atlanta’s tree lovers are frustrated as efforts to enhance the city’s tree protection laws stall once again, despite visible support from local leadership.
For nearly a decade, the battle to strengthen the 2001 Tree Protection Ordinance has faced setbacks, with significant attempts to do so failing in both 2014 and 2017.
In recent years, from early 2020 to late 2024, a comprehensive effort sought to create a new ordinance that would serve as a middle road between tree advocates and developers.
Interestingly, just months ago, a promising draft tree protection ordinance emerged from the city planning department, led by Commissioner Jahnee Prince.
This draft, which drew on extensive community feedback over numerous meetings, seemed poised to protect trees in Atlanta’s single-family neighborhoods.
It contained a tree preservation standard designed to prevent the clear-cutting of trees and proposed increasing fees for developers who chose to cut down trees, intending to deter such actions with heftier penalties.
On May 1, Commissioner Prince presented an even more inclusive proposal that extended protections to multifamily and commercial properties, aligning with a 2023 resolution by the Atlanta City Council advocating for a 50% tree canopy coverage across the city.
As Prince pointed out, 74% of Atlanta’s tree canopy exists on single-family lots, meaning that without protections for commercial land, the city’s goal was unachievable.
Chet Tisdale, a member of the Atlanta Tree Conservation Commission, hailed the expanded plan, as it surprised many by addressing all types of properties rather than limiting protections to single-family homes.
However, the shift in sentiment was immediate when, on May 13, the city planning department introduced a substitute ordinance that removed the critical tree preservation standard entirely and lowered compensation fees for tree removal.
While details remain unclear, it is suspected that this abrupt change followed a meeting between Mayor Andre Dickens and developers, during which concerns over the original ordinance were likely voiced.
Requests for comments regarding the meeting from various stakeholders, including the mayor’s press office and those in attendance, have yielded no information.
What is evident is that the new proposal drastically reverses the original intent behind the ordinance.
On May 1, Prince had emphasized the importance of trees for reducing flooding and expressed the favorable public reception towards the proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance during community consultations.
Despite a significant outcry for preservation from citizens, the development community has pushed for delaying the ordinance until new zoning laws are enacted, a process that could extend for years.
The impact of these delays is tangible.
Atlanta is losing nearly half an acre of trees every day, compounded by an alarming rise in tree removals since 2021.
Currently, Atlanta ranks third in terms of temperature increase among major U.S. cities, trailing only Phoenix and Louisville.
Community activist Mindy Boggs voiced the urgency for a strong tree ordinance in correspondence with city officials, asserting that special interests should not dictate environmental policy.
“YOU know it’s WRONG to suddenly and completely undo the tree ordinance due to last-minute pressure from special interest developers,” she wrote emphatically, urging council members to restore single-family protection standards.
Boggs highlighted the necessity of trees for community health and underscored the accountability of officials in declaring the city’s sustainability intentions.
During the June 2 city council meeting, Tisdale once again advocated for the restoration of the Tree Preservation Standard for single-family areas, emphasizing the urgency of addressing clear-cutting practices.
He declared that the ongoing disregard for Atlanta’s trees constituted an environmental nightmare and that immediate action was critical to end this trend.
While some have described the revised tree ordinance as overly complicated, it stems from an effort to balance developer concerns with preservationist needs.
In truth, a simpler solution may lie in a straightforward regulation requiring city arborist approval for any tree removal, thereby ensuring comprehensive protection across both public and private lands.
As these tree preservation efforts continue to face setbacks, the community remains vigilant, urging leadership to act decisively to protect Atlanta’s invaluable tree canopy.
Additional context on the ongoing struggle over tree protection in Atlanta can be found in the multitude of articles highlighting issues related to trees in the city.
Despite the challenges ahead, the resolve of tree lovers and community advocates remains unwavering in their quest to protect Atlanta’s urban forest.
image source from：https://saportareport.com/enough-already-we-need-to-preserve-our-citys-trees/columnists/maria_saporta/
