Tree Speech

Today, I ran across an interesting blog, called Below the beltline, about politics in Raleigh, NC. What immediately struck me is the similarity between Raleigh politics and San Antonio politics, especially as regards their tree ordinance.

Blogger “Lunsford Lane” notes Raleigh developers’ most common complaints:

1. It’s too burdensome and expensive.
2. It’s too complex and difficult to implement.
3. It saves the wrong trees.

Since these are exactly the complaints we hear in San Antonio, Lane’s responses are worth repeating.

As to the ordinance being too expensive, s/he says:

Best we can figure, (the developer) isn’t losing two or even one mil on this project, rather he’s set to make somewhere between five and ten million. And that is really what matters - that developers can make a fair or better profit on their investments. If we want them to squeeze every last dime out of each project, we can get rid of all rules about trees and stormwater and open space and curbs and gutters and the whole lot of it.

Regarding the ordinance’s complexity, Lane’s rebuttal is perfectly relevant to SA:

If you like (the trees you have to save), you’re good to go. If for whatever reason you don’t, the ordinance provides a Chinese menu of alternate choices… It would be easy to simplify the ordinance, just take out that Chinese menu. But then developers will complain that they have no flexibility.

As to their ordinance saving the wrong trees, s/he argues that:

A close reading of the tree ordinance reveals that the greater focus is on saving places for trees to grow for a variety of environmental services more so than on what particular tree should be saved. This approach affords the landowners greater flexibility and the environment greater protection than just concentrating soley on the most visible and aesthetically pleasing trees. If this isn’t common sense, what is?

To top it all off, Lane reveals a tactic of Raleigh’s developers identical to one used here. In 2001, the Real Estate Council of San Antonio sent a letter to a CoSA consultant asking for a private session unimpeded by “emotional” citizens:

We look forward to a discussion of each of your recommendations (on the tree ordinance) in an unemotional session, perhaps similar to the format for the UDC revision. We believe it would be productive to review your recommendations, line by line, and offer support, comment or disagreement in a business-like setting.

In Raleigh…the same:

… (the) developer of Brier Creek, got in the last and what is likely to prove to be the most prescient word of the evening: just let the development community sit down with City staff and together they can work this thing out. That, gentle reader, accurately sums up the state of Democracy in Raleigh in the 21st century. Develop public task forces to represent various stakeholders. Hear public comment. But when it comes time to actually make law and policy, leave it to the developers.

It’s good to know we’re not alone.