Stephanie 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?

I believe before any development is done there needs to be an assessment of how the wildlife, including flowers and tree’s will be affected, and whoever that voice is needs to have some type of governing authority to say “we cannot move forward”. In the case of the Cherry Tree’s, the governing authority would have made their assessment, connected with the council on the damages, and it should have been shut down. It is fine to propose things, but it is not fine to move forward without consult, transparency or through the proper channels. If there are no channels set-up, then that is where we need to fix the problem.

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?

There is a lot of verbiage in this bill I would want more understanding about. I want to make sure we are moving forward in the right way, but I also want to make sure we are not putting up strange barriers that would impede certain aspects of moving forward. I would want to hear any disagreements some communities’ members might have before I made a decision on something with such a large impact on homeowners or businesses in redesigning or building.

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?

Looking into what Atlanta has, they are working on revisiting their ordinance, their planner stated, “Tim Keane explained to me how the word “protection” in the Tree Protection Ordinance is a misnomer: “The ordinance doesn’t protect trees. It makes you pay for it.” So, if we are going to have legislation, we need to make sure it’s not just legislation that looks good, but legislation that is active in protecting. I like that Atlanta has a goal of creating a 50 percent tree canopy. I would love Nashville to have a goal like this, and then outline steps of getting there. Whether, it be through legislation or actively working in communities to make it happen.

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 suppose this speaks to my first answer of having some that makes those assessments, I am all for it, especially if done in the right way.

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?

I think asking private property owners why they may have cut down trees, was it cost, maintenance, etc, and if we start to understand why they might be less likely to keep a tree, we can figure out ways to better ensure they want to keep them. Also, Nashville takes a big risk with the state, so Nashville needs to ensure conversation about private property and trees, include a state voice.

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?

I suppose Nashville needs to get creative on how we work alongside private groups like Nashville Tree Conservation Corps. If Nashville cannot provide additional funding for more employees, then the Nashville Tree Conservation Corps, and any other tree conservation groups would be great resources to work alongside to ensure the rules are being followed. Even creating within HUB Nashville a way to report potential tree’s being cut.

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?  

We seem to have a bad relationship with the state, it needs to be fixed. If we already know pre-legislation what may happen, then we need to be working closely with state, and all city community members to ensure we are not wasting time. I love that this question was asked, because it shows there is already an understanding, and maybe we just need leadership willing to help build the bridge. I am all for it.