CM Bob Mendes Speaks for the Trees…

QUESTION #1:

The Fort Negley clear-cutting and the NFL cherry-tree incidents illustrated something obvious: When it comes to the urban canopy, there is a breakdown of communication between the segments of Metro Government responsible for trees. The problem is that trees fall under the jurisdiction of many different departments (codes, stormwater, electrical, parks). What internal operational changes need to be made to better protect the existing canopy?

I believe this is an executive branch issue. If the Mayor were to tell the department heads to do a better job with protecting trees and made it clear that this is a top 5 issue, I believe that the departments would execute that directive.

QUESTION #2

Do you support the city’s first tree bill in over a decade (BL2018-1416) in its current form? If not, what changes do you want to see? Or should it be stronger and broader in scope? BL1416 impacts only commercial and multi-family land use types. Do you support enacting tree laws for single-family residential?

I support BL1416. To be honest, I have learned to trust CM Angie Henderson's judgment on this topic because she has been so deep into it. The likelihood is that I would follow her lead on this issue. For groundbreaking regulation – whether it is short term rentals, scooters, affordable housing, community oversight, or trees, there is always a struggle about whether it is better to go for the home run, A+ version of the legislation because that is what is needed, or to go for a slimmed down more basic version in order to get an important foot in the door. There's no one-size-fits-all best choice in deciding whether to stick to demanding A+ far-reaching legislation or focus on getting something passed with the idea of improving it more a few years down the road.

QUESTION #3

Atlanta, Charlotte and Austin all have laws protecting a class of trees they consider to be “heritage trees; property owners must get approval for cutting them down and pay into a tree bank to offset the loss of a large trees in their communities. We feel this sets a tone that makes people more aware and respectful of the urban tree canopy. Do you approve of such legislation?

I presume that there would be lot of "devil in the details", but in general, yes, I would support this. I would be interested in knowing how this mixes with Tennessee law about possibly eroding vested property rights. I assume this is the sort of topic that might easily trip a preemption effort at the state level…and that always forces a more complicated calculus.

QUESTION #4

TREES ATLANTA is considered by many to be the model for a public/private cooperative that works to protect urban tree canopy. TREES ATLANTA employees even help the city as on-site inspectors who follow up to make sure developers have complied with tree ordinances. What do you think of this model, or what would you do to strengthen the implementation and enforcement of Nashville’s tree code?

In Nashville these days, enforcement is about budget and priorities. There are a gazillion things not being enforced properly now – from Codes violations to scooters to short term rentals, and so on and so one. Like many of these quality of life issues, I do not foresee any significant improvement in enforcement until the city government increases the size of the relevant departments. This is why I have sponsored a better budget that increases city revenue for two years in a row. Until these departments are expanded, enforcement will not improve, in my opinion.

QUESTION #5

How could we entice private property owners not to cut down mature trees? How can we encourage developers/builders to keep mature trees in the designing of the home and lot?

To be honest, this is an area where At Large Council Members do not get a lot of first-hand practical experience. This is because we don't do the day-to-day work of zoning and development. That said, from my perspective of getting all over the entire county, I see that there are dramatically different results depending on what district you are in. I know that some of my district member colleagues are very diligent about tree protection, and some aren't. You can see the difference when you drive around town. So in the absence of good enforcement from the city, or ground-breaking new laws, the district council members are the most important front line of defense.

QUESTION #6

Metro Nashville has just 3 employees to oversee all of Davidson County trees, while other peer cities with less tree canopy coverage have 15 to 20 employees on staff for trees. As a result, the Nashville Tree Conservation Corps has cataloged countless incidents where developers eluded complying with tree codes, the city has hundreds of hazardous trees that need to be replaced, and staff have trouble keeping up with just their everyday responsibilities. Do you support spending the money to bring us up to a par with our peer cities? If not, how will you fix this issue?

Yes, I support spending the money to bring us up to par with our peer cities. More details in previous answers.

BONUS QUESTION FOR COUNCIL CANDIDATES

QUESTION #7

How will you work to bridge the divisions we often experience when talking about advancing tree legislation in Nashville between the community-builder dynamic? How can we advance Nashville’s livability standards while avoiding the risk of State preemption?  

I view these trees issues as part of a package of issues along with sidewalks, bikeways, and parks. Each of these has somewhat different sub-issues and nuances, but they all relate to health, happiness, and quality of life. And because they all cost money, they all bring to the forefront a conversation about who pays for them – is it the city, or is it the development community? Your earlier questions observe that the city struggles with deciding to spend more itself. That leads to efforts to push the costs onto the development community. Fundamentally, going forward, the city can push toward paying for more of this itself (at the cost of higher property taxes) or continue to push to put the costs on developers (at the cost of more expensive housing or preemption efforts). I would prefer that the debate be framed this directly – do we as a city prefer to take these costs onto ourselves (and have to pay for them) or do we prefer to continue with the current community/developer struggle knowing preemption risk is always present.