|
Mar. 05, 2004
Freedom's
trees
Residents' outcry apparently saves aging cherries from the ax
Charlotte prides itself on its trees, so it
shouldn't have shocked folks when hundreds of Charlotteans got mad that
Mecklenburg County's Park and Recreation Department wanted to cut down
about two dozen aging Yoshino cherry trees in Freedom Park and plant new
ones.
The park department's reasoning was that more than
20 trees -- estimated at 30 to 50 years old -- were at or beyond Yoshinos'
average natural life span of 40. Some suffered from decay or damage. To
replace them individually as they died over the years would create a
ragged look, park officials thought, so to preserve the well-loved
spectacle of pink blossoms in spring it would be best to replace all the
trees at once.
That idea hit a chain saw of opposition, a primal
scream of anger from local tree- and park-lovers.
It didn't help that the proposal came after months
of disruption in the park from a project to improve water quality in
Little Sugar Creek and ease flooding downstream. That project, from the
county's stormwater services department, resulted in 57 trees being
removed, including some large old trees and some cherries. Although
thousands of trees were replanted, the trauma for park- and tree-lovers
has been intense. Proposing more cherry tree destruction was like pouring
salt in a throbbing wound.
A group called Friends of Freedom Park rallied
supporters. They signed petitions. They lobbied county commissioners and
held a protest under the trees. Comments on their web site illustrate the
special place the trees hold in local memory and affection. Those trees
are our friends, people wrote. We strolled past them as newlyweds. We
played with our babies under their branches. Don't cut them down just
because they're aging, because we're all aging, growing old together.
Park officials, to their credit, listened. They're
working out an agreement with Charlotte arborist Patrick George, whose
generous offer is to care for the aging cherries for a nominal cost. Mr.
George hopes to introduce tree-preservation techniques used in Britain to
maintain centuries-old trees.
The agreement sounds like an excellent solution --
for this set of trees. We hope county officials -- and city, too, though
it had no role in the cherry tree brouhaha -- will take a larger lesson to
heart. Local government should improve its treatment of other venerable
trees in its public projects.
Sometimes project engineers treat old trees more
like old fence posts, to be removed when inconvenient, than old friends.
City and county governments have pushed in recent years to adopt more
tree-friendly policies and stronger rules requiring developers to save
some trees. Government, in its own work, should provide an example of
top-notch treatment for trees. Yes, that might mean slightly higher costs
for some projects for tree preservation and care. We expect most
Charlotteans would approve.
Engineering studies and cost-benefit analyses are
important tools, but they can fail to measure some significant things. How
do you put a value on a city's shared memory? What's the line item for 50
years of a tree's life? How do you engineer affection for Charlotte's
special places?
Local officials too often forget those intangibles.
Maybe seeing the cherry trees abloom each spring in Freedom Park will help
them remember.
Observer Forum: Letters to the Editor
Speedway
tree-cutting had me steaming
I was so angry when I read "Trees go down
despite developers' pledges" (Friday), about the hundreds of trees
cut down at Lowe's Motor Speedway despite promises to save them. I was
even more angry to read that this practice is so common, and that we've
lost a third of our trees over the last decade.When my husband and I chose
to relocate here 17 years ago, a big drawing factor was the canopy of
trees, which made me feel immediately at home.
I urge the city to do more than give the speedway a
slap on the wrist. I hope the city will calculate the cost to hire enough
inspectors to monitor development and hold developers accountable. It
should also determine the cost of replanting the trees lost over the past
decade, then fine all developers who broke their promises. It sounds as if
the
Speedway
will be at the top of the list.
Sandy
Deem
Charlotte
City must not
dismiss developers' misdeeds
Hey, city, when are you going to wake up and see the
trees? Why are you letting developers tear down trees, only to replace
them with saplings that will take years to grow to the size of the tree
that was lost? Isn't it time to penalize developers for their misdeeds?
Does the [
Speedway
] developer have so big a hold on you that you're willing to dismiss it?
Kim Updegrave
Mint Hill
Speedway
official knows tree ordinance a
joke
It seems Bob Rourke, [Lowe's Motor Speedway director
of real estate] has, as he mentioned, "been around the system long
enough" to find that our city tree ordinance doesn't mean squat.
"Look how stupid this is" couldn't be a more appropriate
comment.J.
Taylor
Charlotte
`Inspectors'?
So-called guardians let us down
It is the usual custom in getting permits, etc., to
submit a blueprint/plan and get necessary city/county approvals. Then the
job site becomes the responsibility of the "inspectors." They
must sign off that the original plan was completed, as first approved.
So what happened in this case to the inspectors? They
are our guardians against cheats and corner-cutters. The inspectors should
be fired and the offenders made to adhere to the original, accepted plans.
In other words -- put the darn trees back. I guarantee you it will stop
the next offenders.
Sid Zimberg
Posted on Fri, Jun. 11, 2004
Trees go down despite developers' pledges
Speedway
cited as example of
canopy-depleting trend
MICHELLE CROUCH
Staff Writer
To get
Charlotte
's approval to build a parking lot, Lowe's Motor Speedway agreed to
protect hundreds of trees.
Three months later, it whacked almost all of them.
Speedway
officials took down the trees just before the Coca-Cola 600, saying they
needed to improve visibility to attract race fans to the new parking lot
on U.S. 29 in
Mecklenburg
County
. The result, they said, was much better traffic flow before and after the
race. They said they thought they had permission.
As the city decides how to penalize the speedway, the
loss of the trees underscores a little-known but troubling trend in a city
known for its leafy canopy:
Developers regularly pledge to preserve woods or
specific trees when seeking a rezoning. But the trees often end up dead.
Many are cut after developers change site plans.
Others die under the stress of nearby construction. And in a growing
number of cases, developers break their promises.
Specific numbers are hard to come by, but a zoning
administrator and the city's senior urban-forestry specialist estimate
about half the trees developers pledge to save don't make it.
Some say that's especially worrisome in a county that
lost more than a third of its forest cover between 1990 and 2002.
"It's a losing battle for our trees," said
Laura Brewer, the city's forestry specialist. "In many cases, the
philosophy seems to be: Don't ask for permission, ask for
forgiveness."
Most local developers support the city's effort to
save trees, said Mark Cramer, executive director of Real Estate and
Building Industry Coalition. But he notes that building around trees is a
difficult and time-consuming task that can add thousands to the cost of a
project.
"Sometimes you spend a lot of money and set
aside a lot of land to preserve an older tree, and it just dies on
you," he said. "Younger trees are more hearty and able to
withstand things."
Protective
measures
Charlotte
's tree ordinance requires builders to plant trees along the street and
preserve at least 10 percent of the canopy in every new subdivision. The
city also requires commercial developers to plant new trees and save some
older ones.Trees get another important boost from the rezoning process:
Planners often persuade developers to save more trees than normally
required as a condition of approval for their projects.
That's what happened at the speedway. Planners asked
the developer to protect a 75-foot-wide swath of trees between the lot and
U.S. 29. The approved site plan specifically marks the area as an
"undisturbed tree save area."
The speedway agreed to the provision in February
before the City Council approved the rezoning. But after only 60 cars
parked in the lot for the Nextel All-Star Challenge race May 22, track
officials decided they needed to make the lot more visible before the
Coca-Cola 600 the next week.
An assistant to City Manager Pam Syfert gave them
permission to remove vines, underbrush and some lower tree limbs -- not
trees, city officials said.
Yet the speedway left about 30 of the oldest and
largest trees between the lot and U.S. 29. Everything else came down.
Bob Rourke, the track's director of real estate, said
this week that the speedway did nothing wrong.
"When Pam gives us this `clear the underbrush'
thing, I've been around the system long enough to know -- wink, wink --
what she means: Make it work," he said.
He noted that city officials never clarified what
they meant by underbrush, which he interpreted to mean smaller trees, as
well as vines and brush.
Regardless, he said, the important thing was that 300
cars used the lot for the Coca-Cola 600, allowing the speedway to clear
race traffic an hour faster than in previous races. That, he said, helps
with air quality.
"The city government said they want this area
parked," Rourke said. "I can't get hung up on a bunch of
specifics about a buffer."
Syfert could not be reached.
Assistant
City
Manager Ron Kimble said Syfert and other city employees told the speedway
to leave the trees alone.
Fines are rare
Zoning inspectors, who enforce buffers and other
conditions on site plans, say violations are a constant problem.
In the University area, for example, developers
building the Macaroni Grill, the Home Depot and the planned Lowes Foods
grocery all took down trees in protected areas, they said.
In one of the worst cases, the contractor for
Strawberry Hill shopping center in south
Charlotte
mistakenly razed red oaks, white oaks and hackberry trees -- some 50 years
old -- when he bulldozed on the wrong side of tape cordoning off protected
areas in 1990.
Some violations are intentional, others are
contractor errors, inspectors said.
In most cases, developers are required to replant two
to three times the number of trees they took down as part of a so-called
"mitigation plan." They face fines up to $500 a day and
construction delays if they fail to cooperate, though Katrina Young of
zoning enforcement acknowledges that fines are rare.
Some wonder if the city needs a tougher response.
"We make them plant back more trees than they took down, but they've
already taken down the good stuff," said Heather Davis, a zoning
inspector for 12 years. "They spend a couple thousand dollars and put
in some more trees. It's not the same -- but they've got visibility and
they're happy."
In the speedway case, city officials are analyzing
the site to determine exactly how many trees were lost, their age and
their species. Then, officials will ask Lowe's Motor Speedway to replace a
specified number.
Rourke, the track's real estate director, said
planting more trees would be silly.
"Does it make any sense to come back and plant
trees that may obscure the view?" he said. "If they come back
with something Machiavellian like that, we may have to go to court. Or
(speedway owner) Bruton (Smith) will go to the press and say, `Look how
stupid this is.' "
Thursday afternoon the speedway issued a press
release thanking the city for its OK of the parking lot, which allowed it
to clear out race traffic in "record time."
There was no mention of the trees.
Green Going
Away
• Half the trees developers pledge to save don't
make it, city officials say.
• Builders are required to keep at least 10 percent
of the canopy in every new subdivision.
•
Mecklenburg
lost more than a third of its tree cover between 1990 and 2002.
Michelle
Crouch: (704) 358-5076; mcrouch@charlotteobserver.com
|
