District 34 Council Candidate - CM Angie Henderson - Speaks for the Trees!
CM Angie Henderson
District 34 Council Candidate
Nashville Tree Conservation Corps asked candidates running for Nashville’s 2019 election how they would solve some of our city’s most challenging tree canopy issues. See how they responded in the question and answer below!
CM Angie Henderson 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?
Nashville needs an urban forestry division, and/or a truly empowered urban forester role, which is not confined to the Codes Department. The current “urban forester” is actually, and he would tell you this, the zoning administrator of the landscape code. He cannot take a holistic policy and process view of urban forestry because he barely has time to keep up with all the development plans review that his job requires. Two budget cycles ago, we added another position to Codes for Urban Forestry and we need to add one more, at a minimum, so the Codes enforcement related to urban forestry can become more pro-active. We need to improve and update Chapter 2 of our Code, which defines the urban forester and his or her responsibilities, to optimize how urban forestry works in Nashville. Bloomberg Foundation had done some work with former Mayor Barry’s office, resulting in the creation of the urban forestry program manager position in the Water Department, because trees are indeed storm water infrastructure, but the urban forestry program manager role in the Water Department appears to have had somewhat of a rocky start, wherein someone with an amazing urban forestry resume, was sidelined with an unclear chain of command and areas of responsibility. She is now THE urban forester for the city of Austin, TX, a significant loss for Nashville. Clearly, we’re not organized correctly.
Any trees removed from public land should go through a transparent process. This process was supposedly established internal to Parks subsequent to the Fort Negley tree cutting debacle, but it was clear when the cherry trees at Riverfront Park were removed that this was a committee in name only as the members were not consulted on that matter.
There needs to be a process mapping of the typical and potential decisions made related to trees in various areas and to determine the best organizational structure. In the end, the Urban Forester needs to have final approval and be held accountable for decisions related to public trees, whether within the public ROW or on public land.
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 BL-1416, in fact, I am the lead sponsor! This is the first of several bills, and the scope of things we will need to address is absolutely broader, and already in progress. We do need to elevate mature tree-protection incentives for single-family residential, both in Title 17 (the zoning code) and in the storm water regulations for infill development.
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?
State law makes this approach challenging in Tennessee. I think requiring a specific permit for removal of mature trees of a certain size is worthwhile, but we must be mindful of unintended consequences—builders scraping a lot to avoid permit fees and process time. BL-1416 has established the classification of heritage tree, which will be helpful. I also think that a tree protection requirement for all trees designed/marked to stay on a property for storm-water credits is feasible. Tree protection requirements should likely be implemented first in RS20 and up zoning classifications, where there is ample space to protect mature trees during home construction.
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 citizens and builders need to be better informed about the benefits of mature tree retention. Trees that are to remain and are receiving credit as such for storm water, need to be clearly marked with signage. Neighbors/citizens need to be more aware so that those violations can be proactively called in to Codes. Also, all Codes inspectors need to be cross trained on basic site practice & tree protection requirements, so that when they see something, if they go out for any kind of inspection, they can make a report of a tree-related violation.
Non-profit partners definitely have a role to play, and their participation is always welcome, but I would like to city to staff enforcement sufficiently so that the onus is not on citizens and volunteers to enforce regulations.
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?
Community education about how mature trees enhance property values on individual properties and in a neighborhood generally. Trees collect and reduce the need for onsite storm water mitigation such as detention ponds. Trees also reduce cooling costs. Caring for and protecting trees costs much less than removing large trees.
There needs to be greater value in the storm water infill process for mature trees. The mature tree credit as currently structured is not working.
Builders and owners that protect mature trees need to be commended. Non-profits should highlight this through social media and an annual awards program. See below Question #7 regarding a tree-friendly builder seal.
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?
Please see Question #1 above regarding staffing. YES. I support more staffing for urban forestry.
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?
Before we engage the single- & two-family home construction space, we need to reach out to home builders that are addressing trees well. We also need to elevate education efforts with home builders through MTAC, non-profits, and the Homebuilders Association. I would like to see a “tree-friendly builder” seal of sorts established and promoted. We need to do a better job of documenting, recognizing and commending those builders and designers who do protect trees.
I think we can strike the balance and find a mutually agreeable and beneficial level of requirement, that leans to the incentivizing end of the spectrum.
Fundamentally, any public requirements on private land are at risk of pre-emption with a “property rights” argument, especially in Tennessee, which has the second most pre-emptive state legislature in the United States of America after Texas. That said, while we must be mindful of preemption, we should not legislate in fear of it.