Dr. Julia M. Clark-Johnson 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?

To avoid upsetting native Nashvillians and other residents that understood the significance of tampering with Fort Negley and the NFL cherry-tree incidents there should be no breakdown of communication between the segments of Metro Government responsible for the trees. It is the responsibility of candidates seeking positions to elect in specialty types of jurisdictions to clearly understand the policies and regulations governing these categorized departments.

The first internal operational change that needs to be made to protect the existing canopy is public servant education. Government workshops, seminars and website training for internal operational learning is a valuable tool.

My second internal operational change that needs to be made to better protect the existing canopy is research. The Metro Government responsible for trees should utilize this approach before a tree proposal for removal is presented for Council consideration.

Lastly, the Metro Government involved in the final decision-making processes should educate and petition the public for their opinion before exercising any plans to remove and/or replace trees in Davidson County regarding all issues pertinent to codes, storm water, electrical wiring and parks. Effectively leadership for any government office is to communicate internally; but not limit to, externally.

QUESTION #2

Do you support the city’s first tree bill in over a decade (BL2018-1416) in its current form?

Yes, with a future promise never to exempt Metro’s general Plan adopted in 2015 which is stated as follows “identifies protection and enhancement of the tree canopy as a county-wide goal of Nashville” additionally to the 2018 “Root Nashville public private partnership initiated by the mayor’s office in 2018 with a goal of planting 500,000 trees in Nashville by 2050; and Whereas, updates to the standards of the zoning code pertaining to trees will help align the zoning code with adopted policy documents and established community goals and ensure the benefits of trees are experienced by all citizens of Nashville and Davidson County” and finally to include Sections 1 – 5 as protectively proposed as reads in this amended/revised bill.

If not, what changes do you want to see?

I recommend no changes at this time but a recommendation that tree laws pertain to all residential communities and family residing in Nashville.

Or should it be stronger and broader in scope?

It’s good. It is strongly direct and broad enough in scope. It can always be amended/revised whenever and where ever necessary.

BL1416 impacts only commercial and multi-family land use types. Do you support enacting tree laws for single-family residential?

Yes.  Equitable laws applicable to Davidson County ensure protection of all trees; equitability means that all laws regardless of nature should apply to all Davidson County residents regardless of commercial, multi-family and/or single-family land use types. These laws should be strictly enforced because it involves the continual improvements in Nashville’s communities and neighborhoods.

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!

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 Metro Council should propose to adopt this legislative model for a public/private cooperative that works to protect urban tree canopy from Atlanta. The Metro Council should ask for help from any states implementing successful models such as Trees Atlanta.  They should never be afraid to ask for any help for improving our communities and neighborhoods.

QUESTION #5

How could we entice private property owners not to cut down mature trees?

Davidson County can entice private property owners not to cut down mature trees by regularly offering incentives and implementing contest awards: i.e. for the oldest private property owner’s tree in each community and/or neighborhood. Owners will be thrilled to have their trees named historical in the media. Competitors will be thrilled to participate, thereby, trying to preserve their mature trees for the title, a property tax depreciation incentive, gift cards and/or freebees.    

How can we encourage developers/builders to keep mature trees in the designing of the home and lot?

My above suggestion is not limited to private property owners. This may encourage developers/builders to keep mature trees in their designing of the home and lot, alike. Present this suggestion to the Council for approval. Let’s put my plan in motion and see how it turns out.

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?

Of course I will support Metro Nashville’s hiring of more employees to oversee the trees. However, the staff will consist of fully trained conservationist employees joining the staff for protection of the historical trees. A rule to practice is clear education for those developers eluding from complying with tree codes is an enormous city fine along with a adjudicate court decision to replace the tree/trees. The court will determine the cost of fines and fees for replacement according to the number of trees destroyed, the length of time necessary for replacement and the attitude of the developer toward his/her directive.

BONUS QUESTION FOR MAYORAL CANDIDATES

QUESTION #7

Is the current zoning board well balanced in terms of competing interests (i.e. environmental, developer, new revenue interests, etc.). And, if not, what would you look for in new appointees?

Yes! As many zoning board signs that I view driving down Davidson County, communities and neighborhoods, it’s obvious the developers are well balanced in terms of competing interests.  The zoning board regulations on how land is used and what activities are conducted in the environment are balanced. They appear to exercise good land use planning, for example, help to reduce limited soil erosion and contaminated water surfaces.

The biggest issue in terms of well balance terms of competing interest involves personal property residential zoning. Placing restrictions on people’s use of their personal property has resulted in a controversial issue. If the zoning board decision-making practices include the temporary discomforts of residents residing in the zoning areas, an arising issues regarding well balanced in terms of competing interests is indeed questionable. In Davidson County zoning board decision have recently become a high controversial issues in terms of the subject of gentrification in the Davidson County downtown area. Is the new review interest plan beneficial for both the developer and it service county assessed significant financing components of under the current contractual agreement? 

True, zoning appellant process is recognized, but whose favor does it support the resident’s or the developer’s viewpoint? There are too many complaints regarding affordable housing in Davidson County. The zoning board is responsible for investigating unregulated urbanization contaminating drinking water, congested urban areas, and endangered species, obstruct sunlight and etc.