Charles Flowers Speaks for the Trees…

Answered questions accepted after July 6th deadline.

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?

To better protect the existing canopy, and moreover, to reduce communication issues, I think codes should have the ultimate responsibility. Given that we are losing many trees to development and new buildings, it is critical that tree protection is consistently regulated in this way. Moving forward, since many stakeholders have been a part of the conversation, I recommend regular meetings with necessary departments, and ultimately, moving towards a designated department to lead.

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 BL2018-1416 in it's current form. I do not stand to enact tree laws for single-family residences.

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?

Yes, I do approve of laws to protect heritage trees.

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?

I think that TREES ATLANTA is a strong example of public and private cooperation moving towards a common goal. This both/and approach - were it to be implemented in Nashville - would benefit the environment and constituents.

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?

Moving forward, we could incentivize developers to prioritize trees given by allowing for increased density or the reduction of setbacks. Moreover, in District 5, I plan to be apart of the conversations with developers, encouraging them to prioritize the interest of neighbors, not just with trees, but with sidewalks, streetlights, and stormwater considerations as well.

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 do support this change.