John Green 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?

There are many areas of Metro Government, beside trees, that require coordination and communication across departments. If elected to the Council, I want to work on improvements to the communications across the departments. Without additional research, it is difficult to know if a single point of contact in Metro is the best approach or simply improved cross communication. I would even be interested in looking at the development of an advisory group of citizens to review the tree canopy. Many times, the voices of citizens bring better results.

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 the tree ordinance that was passed by the Planning Commission that has been referred to the Council for approval. This ordinance is the result of long collaboration among many parties.

At a broader level, the city must work with all stakeholders -- from owners of individual lots to large commercial owners -- to encourage biodiversity and the planting of more native trees and plants. For too many years, we have allowed large areas of the city to be planted with mono-culture plants and trees and in many cases non-native species. Consequently we face issues of invasive species at natural areas like Fort Negley and our parks. We also place the tree canopy at risk of loss from disease.

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?

While I support protecting heritage trees, it is also important that we are constantly replanting large number of diverse and native tree species. Too often in urban settings, we create mono-culture of trees and plants. Ultimately these are not healthy for the landscape and when diseases occur among trees, which can happen regularly, large swaths of trees are lost. Before approving such legislation, I would want to ensure that it would help to achieve the goal of a denser tree canopy with biodiversity.

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?

The city of Nashville currently has an Urban Forester. However, like many areas of Metro Government, shortfalls in funding have created staffing issues that create enforcement issues.

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?

When looking at the tree canopy, it is important to keep in mind tree along streets as well as on properties. Street canopy provides shading that encourages use of sidewalks and bikeways. Mature, native trees maintenance should be encouraged at all times. Improving the biodiversity of trees and plants should be encouraged.

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?

Many departments of Nashville are significantly short-staffed and underfunded. Teachers, Police, Firefighters and Public Works among many departments. We must match our commitment to a level of services with funding for the level of services we desire.

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 am a strong believer in collaboration and involving as many different community voices in our decision making. It is also vital that we work with legislators in the State and individuals in the city who can exercise influence at the State level. The reality of this City is that it must deal with a State Legislature that seems uncooperative with the goals of the City. Based upon conversations with community leaders in my area, there are ways to work with the legislature to ensure that our goals are met without hindrance. If we can educate the legislature that its attempt at intervention has costs to the State (fiscal notes attached to bills), then we may be to prevent its intervention.