Years of hard work by citizens and city staff to establish a meaningful tree protection ordinance in Atlanta encountered a political setback recently.
On June 16, the Atlanta City Council approved a new tree protection ordinance that, according to critics, fails to genuinely protect trees on developing properties throughout the city.
Atlanta has been suffering from significant tree loss due to excessive cutting by builders, who often remove more trees than necessary.
Since the implementation of fees for tree cutting in 2001, these charges have not deterred developers; rather, they have simply become part of the business model, leading to an increase in clear-cutting practices.
Critics point out that the newly introduced ordinance is essentially “empty.”
While the concept of a “tree density” requirement may sound appealing, it does not necessitate the preservation of existing trees, as developers can easily meet this requirement by planting new trees instead.
Though the ordinance may reduce illegal tree cutting on private properties, it does not address the situation in developments where trees can continue to be cut down legally.
Though recompense fees have been increased under the new ordinance, they come with “caps” that limit the maximum amount payable, regardless of the number of trees removed.
This means that as more trees are cut, the cost per tree decreases.
Moreover, the fee caps apply only if developers choose to retain some trees, and since retaining trees is optional, the minimal percentage requirement allows for large mature oaks and hardwoods to be cleared while smaller, less valuable trees can be easily saved at the margins of properties.
Interestingly, trees located in stream buffers count as “preserved” under the new ordinance, even though they can never be removed due to existing local regulations.
As a result, many properties can still undergo clear-cutting while the fees paid to the city might even decrease compared to current payment structures.
Currently, the full fee rate only compensates the city about 50% of the fair market value for trees that are lost.
Despite the concerns raised by community members and environmental advocates, some council members view the ordinance as a positive move forward, although its actual efficacy continues to be debated.
Kathryn Kolb, one of the leaders of the Citizens Group for a Better Atlanta Tree Ordinance, expressed her disappointment with the ordinance’s shortcomings.
“The ordinance had the potential to protect our vital trees and ecosystems more rigorously,” Kolb stated.
Her sentiments were echoed by fellow members of the Citizens Group who have been working for years to advocate for stronger tree protection measures.
Chet Tisdale, another leader of the Citizens Group, emphasized that the goals of saving trees and facilitating responsible development can coexist.
He pointed out that the city must find a way to balance development needs with environmental preservation to create a sustainable urban environment.
Howard Katzman also highlighted how the pre-existing tree protection processes seem overly lenient, allowing for significant tree loss in the name of development.
The push for a more robust tree protection framework was built on the recognition that trees play a vital role in urban infrastructure, providing shade, improving air quality, and enhancing aesthetic appeal.
As the debate continues, advocates for stronger tree protection maintain hope that future legislative efforts will yield better outcomes for Atlanta’s urban forests.
With increasing urbanization, the challenge for city leaders is to develop policies that encourage responsible building practices while ensuring the survival of the city’s trees.
Community activists are keeping a close watch on the developments following the ordinance’s approval and remain eager to advocate for more effective legislation in the future.
The ongoing dialogue between stakeholders, developers, and citizens could pave the way for a healthier balance between growth and ecological preservation in Atlanta.
image source from：ajc
