Ted Chapin 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?

Urban Forestry is currently a division of Metro Codes. I believe the concerns of the many departments of Metro regarding trees should be considered under the same standards that will be applied to property owners and developers. BL2018-1416 places the responsibility of issuing permits to prune or remove trees as well as inspections under the office of the Urban Forestry. Urban Forestry should be the entity that holds city departments accountable to the standards set forth in the bill.

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 do support BL2018-1416 in concept although I do have some concerns regarding enforcement. Codes intended to preserve quality of life in neighborhoods are often rigorously enforced on individual property owners while investors and developers seem to find ways to get around them. The situation with the cherry trees in Riverfront Park was highly visible example of offering exceptions to power, money, and relationships. Similar favor is bestowed on power, money, and relationships by departments of Metro every single day. I appreciate what the bill intends to do, but I am not optimistic about equitable enforcement.

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 approve of protecting designated species of “heritage trees” I do think it is important to raise public awareness of the value of hardwood trees. I am skeptical of a paying into a tree bank as a deterrent. I believe the result will be similar to the situation I outlined in my answer to question 2 where it may deter individual property owners with limited means from cutting down trees, but developers and investors will simply pay the fee and cut the tree down.

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 am in favor of public/private partnerships. Your questionnaire makes the point in question 6 that Metro only has three employees responsible for trees across the entire county. The city budget has not afforded competitive wages for our teachers and first responders. Codes added 3 inspectors this year that will exclusively monitor and enforce Short Term Rental Permits. I do not see Codes adding a handful much less a dozen additional employees to implement and enforce tree code. Public/private partnerships cannot be used to solve our budgetary shortfalls for teachers, police, fire, and medical. Implementation and enforcement of tree code is a situation where a public private partnership could work very well.

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?

BL2018-1416 incentivizes developers by offering a reduction in required parking spaces for preserving mature trees. I am deeply concerned about this incentive as it allows developers to maintain the same building mass while reducing parking capacity. A developer can save a single 12” diameter tree (of any kind?) OR a heritage tree on the edge of a parking lot and lose space equal to the drip line of the tree but cut up to 41 parking spaces from the required parking. I am glad we saved a tree, but where do the cars go? On our neighboring streets. There is no comparable incentive for private property owners, and homeowners will pay the price for the parking incentive when visitors to the apartment building on the corner are taking up all of the street parking in front of their houses.

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 do not support adding a dozen employees for tree enforcement. Please see my answer to question 4. This is a situation where a public private partnership could be an ideal solution.

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?  

As a candidate but not the incumbent, I am not familiar with existing divisions regarding tree legislation. I will assume the “community builder dynamic” is being used to describe a preference of growth over quality of life. As with any division of opinions on any subject, I would invite my fellow council members to reason with me. I would give their opinions due consideration as I hope they would mine. My opinions will be based on thoughtful consideration of the cost versus benefits to the citizens of District 21.