Barking up the wrong trees
New legislation in Virginia doesn't address trees on private property not under development, which is where the majority of urban tree canopy loss occurs.
Virginia is losing urban tree canopy cover at an alarming rate. We've all seen a vacant lot full of trees in our community get cleared for development, and we know that the majority of urban trees are on private property. There is legislation headed to Gov. Youngkin's desk that would allow all local governments to require developers to replant a certain percentage of trees on properties under development. Virginia Mercury reported:
Legislation from Del. Patrick Hope, D-Arlington, is one of three proposals awaiting a signature from Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin that aim to expand the powers local governments have to preserve their tree canopy … [this] sparked concern from developers, who worry it could let governments impose strict requirements on projects that would drive up costs … The idea, said Jurczyk, is to require that the overall number of trees on a parcel remains stable but give developers flexibility to construct projects as they wish without requiring them to preserve specific trees.
Great news for tree advocates, right?
There's just one problem with the bill: it doesn't address trees on private property that is not under development, and that's where the majority of urban tree canopy loss is occurring. Last year Seattle enacted some of the most comprehensive tree canopy protections in the country, and noted on the city website:
As shown in the Office of Sustainability and Environment’s 2021 Tree Canopy Assessment, most tree loss is occurring outside of development and in areas zoned Neighborhood Residential (formerly Single Family) and Parks and Natural Areas. Losses in these two areas account for 78% of the total canopy loss between 2016 and 2021.
Unfortunately HB 529 won't do anything to stop neighbors from chopping down mature trees in their backyard, because their backyard is not “under development.” The bill doesn’t actually help preserve trees, it would simply allow local governments to require replanting a certain percentage of trees on new developments.
Atlanta has the highest percentage of overall urban tree canopy of any large US city (47.9%). It’s no coincidence that Atlanta also has some of the strongest tree preservation policies of any US city. Harrisonburg’s urban tree canopy cover is only 26%. Lets compare two residential neighborhoods in Harrisonburg and Atlanta and see what these policies look like from above:
Not great, Bob. As a strict construction Dillon Rule state, local governments in Virginia don’t have the authority to implement similar policies to preserve and grow their urban tree canopies, and HB 529 will do little to change that. Local governments in Virginia should have the authority to enact protections for trees on private property, regardless of whether that land is in the process of being developed. Under Dillon’s Rule, municipal governments currently lack that authority. That permission would need to come from General Assembly, and so far, we’re not seeing it.
Virginia is currently in the midst of an affordable housing crisis. By singling out private property “during the development process,” not only have legislators failed to address the root cause of urban tree canopy loss — if this bill becomes law, it is practically guaranteed to pit local tree canopy preservationists against affordable housing advocates in cities and towns across Virginia. Cities should be full of both people and trees.
It's the expanses of asphalt for car infrastructure that is the real culprit here, not housing. We’ve prioritized on-street car parking, “free” parking at stores, and wide roads over urban tree canopy growth. Minnesota’s People Over Parking Act has nothing to do with tree canopy cover, yet ironically, it may do more to preserve and grow urban tree canopies than Virginia’s HB 529.
I’m hopeful that next year legislators will draft legislation that will allow localities to actually protect, preserve, and grow their UTC by addressing trees that are not on property under development.
How can we increase tree canopy cover in Harrisonburg?
Every time I hear a chainsaw in my neighborhood, I cringe. When a tree is in poor health and needs to come down, that’s understandable, but we’ve watched so many big, healthy trees around us get butchered for no reason other than “it was blocking my view.”
Super interesting, thanks for this post! That comparison between us and Atlanta is jarring. I also can’t help but think how big of a bandaid this law would be if developers cut down mature trees and replace them with young, fast growing but ultimately weak trees like Leyland cypresses, Bradford pears and certain maples