It is maddening to be a tree lover in Atlanta.
Everyone in leadership claims to want to protect Atlanta’s trees. But when it comes time to take a stand and actually pass a new tree protection ordinance, leaders respond by delaying or diluting a proposed tree ordinance.
This is not new. Since 2014, Atlanta has been trying to strengthen the 2001 Tree Protection Ordinance to prohibit the clear-cutting of trees in Atlanta. The 2014 attempt failed. Another attempt in 2017 fizzled.
Then, from early 2020 to late 2024, a dedicated effort was made to craft a tree protection ordinance (TPO) that would be a compromise between tree preservationists and developers.
Several months ago, the city’s planning department presented a draft tree protection ordinance that incorporated recommendations from countless neighborhood meetings, a tree mediation group seeking consensus among various parties and a Citizens Group draft TPO.
It finally seemed as if we would be moving to protect Atlanta’s trees in the city’s single-family neighborhoods. The compromise included two main features. There would be a tree preservation standard to prevent the clear-cutting of trees.
The proposed ordinance also would have increased “recompense” fees — the cost imposed for cutting down trees. The goal was to prevent developers from cutting down trees by just paying minimal penalties for removing trees. The goal was to make it more expensive to cut down the city’s trees so developers would hesitate before taking out their chainsaws.
On May 1, the city planning department, headed by Commissioner Jahnee Prince, presented a proposed ordinance that went even further. It incorporated multifamily and commercial developments as being subject to a new tree ordinance.
The rationale? In 2023, the Atlanta City Council passed a resolution stating that the city should have a tree canopy that covers 50 percent of the land. The best estimate is that Atlanta’s tree canopy is at 46.1 percent and that it is losing nearly half an acre of trees every day.
“Most of our canopy is on single-family lots — 74 percent,” Prince told the council committee during a work session when she presented the May 1 draft of a new tree ordinance. “We are not going to hit the 50 percent [tree canopy] goal without tree preservation on commercial lots.”
Tree preservationists applauded having a TPO that incorporated all properties in the city, not just single-family lots.
“It took everybody by surprise,” said Chet Tisdale, a member of the Atlanta Tree Conservation Commission who worked on the Citizens Group TPO version.
Developers, who already were lukewarm to the idea of the city passing a stricter tree ordinance, were not happy. Some affordable housing folks also expressed concerns, but Tisdale has said those fears are unfounded because of misinformation.
In fact, Tisdale said strategically it made sense to first pass the single-family tree preservation standard, where there had been years of work to draft a compromise. Then Tisdale said the city could work on a consensus with developers of commercial and multifamily properties to incorporate a tree preservation standard throughout the city.
Then, on May 13, the city planning department presented a substitute TPO. This time, the tree preservation standard had been removed — the guts of the ordinance. And recompense fees were significantly lower.
So, what happened? Why did the city planning department make such an abrupt change?
Tisdale said Mayor Andre Dickens had a meeting with developers sometime between May 2 and May 9, where they complained about the proposed TPO.
For the record, I have asked the mayor’s press office, the city’s planning department, developers who were in attendance and other officials familiar with the meeting to find out exactly when it was held and what was discussed. So far, no response.
All we do know is that on May 13, the city’s substitute tree ordinance was a stark reversal of the city’s position that we needed to protect our trees.
This was Commissioner Prince, on May 1, speaking of the value of Atlanta’s trees, saying more trees equals less flooding.
Prince also described the process that include 32 meetings to set guiding principles for the city’s staff. The city also attended every Neighborhood Planning Unit meeting between February and April to get community feedback.
“We heard a lot of support for the Tree Preservation Ordinance. That was the main takeaway,” she said. “Everyone wanted to save trees.”
At that meeting, Prince also said she believed the new TPO would be aligned with a new zoning ordinance that’s also in the works.
The development community has argued that we shouldn’t move forward with a new tree preservation ordinance until we have a new zoning ordinance, which will take months, if not years, to enact. Again, the tactic is delay, delay, delay.
The facts are clear. Atlanta may be a city in a forest for now, but we have been falling short when it comes to protecting our trees.
In addition to losing .43 acres of trees each day in the city of Atlanta — according to a Georgia Tech study — the number of trees we cut down each year has increased each year since 2021. It’s no wonder that Atlanta now ranks third in temperature rise among major U.S. cities behind Phoenix and Louisville.
Community activist Mindy Boggs, who is involved in developing America’s Future Museum, wrote in an email to a slew of city officials, warning that Atlanta can’t call itself a sustainable city if it scraps a stricter new tree protection ordinance.
“YOU know it’s WRONG to suddenly and completely undo the tree ordinance due to last-minute pressure from special interest developers. City Council Members should at MINIMUM, restore single family tree preservation standards, along with reasonable discounts for affordable housing,” Boggs wrote using all caps for emphasis.
“Atlanta’s trees are essential to the health and well-being of its citizens,” she added. “WE are paying attention to what you are, or are not, doing. Don’t call yourself a Sustainable City if you do not have the sincere intention and political will to make it so. We need to elect someone who does.”
At the June 2 meeting of the Atlanta City Council, Tisdale urged council members to add the Tree Preservation Standard to the existing TPO for single-family residential areas as a way to provide some immediate protection from clear-cutting.
What’s most important is to end the “crisis” of clear-cutting, he added.
“Clear-cutting is destroying Atlanta’s tree canopy. We are going backwards rather than forward,” he said. “Clear-cutting is Atlanta’s environmental nightmare.”
Note to readers: Some people have complained that the revised (pre-May 13) tree protection ordinance is too complicated. It is complicated because the city went to extreme efforts to address the concerns of developers and tree preservationists alike. If it were up to me, I would propose a simple tree ordinance. No one in the city can cut down a tree unless it first has been approved by a city arborist. This would include trees on publicly-owned land — be it the city, state, Beltline, MARTA, Atlanta Housing, Atlanta Board of Education, etc. Now that would protect our tree canopy — once and for all.
Click here for Kelly Jordan’s recent photo display of Atlanta’s trees.
Also, here are numerous articles SaportaReport has posted about trees since 2017. Now you can understand why it is maddening to have nothing to show for all these years of efforts from so many well-meaning citizens working to protect our trees.
Atlanta needs to better protect and expand its tree canopy
Nov. 27, 2023
Time for Atlanta’s arborists, developers and citizens to advocate for trees
Dec. 21, 2020
Citizens group proposes an alternative tree ordinance for Atlanta
June 28, 2020
The tree massacre at the Bobby Jones Golf Course a blow to Atlanta
March 12, 2018
A growing chorus: Atlanta must be proactive to preserve its unique tree canopy
July 10, 2017
Atlanta’s urban tree canopy leads the nation; but most trees are not protected
May 7, 2017
As Atlanta grows, let’s make sure we protect our precious trees
Feb. 27, 2017
What none of the tree ordinances (the current proposed one or others) do is preserve “Majestic” trees. There are many really large, spectacular trees in our city that should be identified, named (we could have some fun with this ☺️) and preserved / protected. Implement severe criminal penalties for builders/developers/etc who take down or poison these sentinels of our city. In doing this, there needs to be some accommodation for maintenance, safety and end of life of such specimens.
Thank you Maria , for this comprehensive report . It should be required reading . Many of us have given up , especially because Andre Dickens suddenly confused and diluted the almost to the finish line ordinance . The Planning Dept has finished the proposed Zoning 2.0 , which Dickens says will be delayed until hi re-election . Why ? Because it allows for even MORE tree destruction by “administrative consent” , meaning “in secret”.
We have lost so much during the last few years . Only thing I can think of is “ANYBODY BUT ANDRE” … thank you.
Andre Dickens going against the will of the people and abruptly changing course on another popular initiative? Say it ain’t so!
Just to be clear: This framing of homes and businesses vs trees is just the wrong angle. We need all three in abundance. Tree Atlanta’s canopy report identified that 70% of the city is green space. We could easily meet – even exceed – our tree canopy goals simply planting trees in existing grassland, public property, and right-of-way. The real problem is that the City is bankrupt and can’t afford to manage the canopy themselves, so they are trying to force the cost onto the residents and property owners. Atlanta deserves better than another Reaganesque scheme to privatize essential gov’t services.
Trees Atlanta NEVER issued a canopy report indicating that 70% of the city is green space. Where did you even come up with that? Perhaps the periodic canopy reports issued by Georgia Tech indicates that 70% of the city’s overall land does not have a building or parking lot on it, but that is hardly the same as canopy. The 46% Maria notes is best guess at this time, and that number is without question falling every single day. Reasonable preservation standards and higher tree removal permit fees are common sense approaches that begin to place an appropriate value on our tree canopy. These must be kept in the ordinance if the Mayor and Council are actually going to demonstrate they care more about their citizens than they do the special interests focused only on maximizing the profits they generate through their developments.
TREES:
Trees define Atlanta.
Atlanta is known as “The city in a forest.”
Trees provide beauty, shade and enhance our ability to enjoy our southern climate.
When you’re outside where are you? Chances are you’re under our trees enjoying the shade and cooling they provide.
So WHY would anyone want to ensure that we LOSE our trees?
WHY would anyone provide roadblocks that will HARM our City’s environment and natural beauty?
I want to SAVE TREES. I want my legacy in Atlanta—whatever it might be—that I cared about our community enjoying our parks, our streetscapes, our shops, our restaurants, our trails, our paths, and our special events.
We will LOSE this if we LOSE our trees.
Please join me and my colleagues on City Council to save our trees.
Mary Norwood
Atlanta City Council
District 8
The Tree Protection Ordinance is an extremely complicated issue. We all love trees but the ordinance has to strike a balance between protecting trees and the need to build housing, commercial and industrial projects.
The existing and the proposed ordinances put all the responsibility on the development of land and zero responsibility on the broader community. In many of the recent meetings with stakeholders a number of proposals to protect trees met with resistance and were not included in any of the new draft ordinances. One was to require ALL parcels in the city be required to meet a city defined site density or a certain number of trees planted to meet a future canopy target. That didn’t make it. If included, this would actually increase our canopy. Another was to allow for an administrative variance to save a tree(s) by adjusting the setbacks. That was not included in a meaningful way. I wonder why.
What the editorial also glossed over is nearly every significant provider of affordable housing has publicly stated the earlier drafts would have significantly reduced their ability to provide truly affordable housing. These are not wicked developers trying to squeeze out every dollars possible. My company is one such provider of affordable housing and I have worked tirelessly to help find the right balance.
Another very important issue which to the casual observer isn’t apparent is that the areas of our city that have been disinvested for our entire history have had significant tree growth. A restrictive new Tree Protection Ordinance would make developing these areas even harder if not impossible. I know many tree advocates don’t want this to be the case but it will happen. That would be bad public policy.
It’s complicated y’all, otherwise it would’ve dealt with years ago. To say that we simply need not allow tree removal for developments sake is not the answer, even if some feel that’s the most important decision the city council should make.
Atlanta has plenty of trees. Atlanta loses more trees due to natural tree failure (wind+rain) than to developers. An exception being the police training facility that was clear cut. Where was all the outrage for that literal clear cutting?
Atlanta is blessed with lots of trees. Protecting them is important but it’s a distraction from doing real work that would help the most vulnerable in the city. It’s a fast track to gentrifying neighborhoods.
Lakewood has 100% tree canopy cover. It’s one of the most low-income, neglected, neighborhoods in the city. Anytime there’s a storm residents suffer from tree damage to homes and cars.
Chet is correct there is a lot of misleading information about tree canopy and tree health and it’s coming from the people who claim to want to protect them.
Also the city arborists approve at least 25 tree removals each week. Trees don’t last forever.
Between city approved tree slaughter and natural tree failure after storms there’s your canopy loss.