TX governor wants to stop tree protection ordinances

Tom Dunlap

Here from the beginning
#1
He killed two large pecan trees on his property even though they were protected by TPOs

Are TPOs really an example of the heavy hand of the common good over powering the ownership of trees that are usually hundreds of years old?

The Austin TPO came about through long discussions with representatives of a broad group of stakeholders. Government, developers, arborists and more thrashed out a reasonable solution that has been in affect for years

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...d_tree_will_chop_down_law_protecting_old.html
 

FreeFallin

Well-Known Member
#3
I keep hearing millenials getting blamed for having a "nobody can tell me what to do" attitude, and then making naive, simplistic decisions that do a lot of damage. But I don't think we can blame them for inventing that ideology.

People like this governor that can't do the simple math and strike a balance between personal desires, and community well being. It's scary to hand someone like that the power to change the communities laws.
 

Tyler Durden

Well-Known Member
#4
That makes me embarrassed to be a Texan. The people running that state want to rape the land for everything they can. Do you know how many calls I would get to kill a tree when I lived there.
Home owner; "Hi, I was wondering, is there some way you can come by and kill my tree. The ordinance in town states that I can only remove my historic tree if it dies, is there something you can spray to make that happen"
Got that call countless times.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
 

JD3000

Well-Known Member
#9
Sigh...Ohio has issues for sure.

Protecting trees, particularly heritage ones, usually isnt a huge problem here however, protecting trees during construction has been quite bad unless an arborist is involved from the jump.
 
#10
I agree with Abbott on this and many other things. IMO, he has been the best governor TX has had in a long long time. You can cut down the trees as long as you pay money to some bureaucracy? Sure, that is is "conservation".

If people that want to encourage property owners to keep and maintain trees, they should push for property tax exemptions for land owners. But they wont, because its not about trees, its about money and control. Notice how the article didn't mention anything about conservation groups volunteering their time/money to maintain these trees, absorb the cost of insurance, or engineering cost to keep the trees, etc.

Forcing people to keep/maintain trees under threat of violence and against their will is.....wrong.

Also, trees save cities billions of dollars ehhh? Wonder how they came up with that number. Pretty sure they are very expensive to taxpayers. I know from personal experience that they are rather expensive to maintain and clean up after.

I very much enjoy trees and do my best to maintain them but that is my choice to make.
 
Last edited:

Bucknut

Well-Known Member
#11
Do you know how many calls I would get to kill a tree when I lived there.
Home owner; "Hi, I was wondering, is there some way you can come by and kill my tree. The ordinance in town states that I can only remove my historic tree if it dies, is there something you can spray to make that happen"
Got that call countless times.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
I get that it's frustrating, but this is a great example of the perverse incentives that are created by politicians trying to improve our lives for us. I'll bet this ordinance actually resulted in the death of more trees than would have been killed in its absence. Don't forget- most homeowners with veteran trees are not as rich as Gov. Abbott. They may not have the money to maintain a large tree. And let's not pretend that every tree over 19" diameter is an asset. Many of them are huge liabilities, often depending on species.

People will typically find ways around laws they deem silly or unjust. Even if the goal of the law is admirable.
 

Drumbo

Active Member
#12
Sigh...Ohio has issues for sure.

Protecting trees, particularly heritage ones, usually isnt a huge problem here however, protecting trees during construction has been quite bad unless an arborist is involved from the jump.
YUP!
Driving through newer neighborhoods is sad, the only trees they leave standing are dead within years and the first row of trees in the woods behind each new house is dead too!
 

Bucknut

Well-Known Member
#13
Seems like the newer "cookie cutter" neighborhoods suffer from "Bulldoze the forest and import 2 saplings for each front yard" syndrome. I get it; soooo much faster for the developer. Therefore more affordable for the buyers. Still....

Maybe this is an example of what a more focused/enforceable ordinance might look like: apply the 19" rule to new residential developments and commercial construction?
 

cerviarborist

Well-Known Member
#15
Perhaps the Arbor Day Foundation will start to revoke "Tree City USA" status in these communities. If buildings start getting their LEED certification pulled, then maybe there will be enough of a hue and cry from the electorate to get the incumbents to reconsider these ridiculous edicts.
 

guymayor

Well-Known Member
#17
I get that it's frustrating, but this is a great example of the perverse incentives that are created by politicians trying to improve our lives for us. I'll bet this ordinance actually resulted in the death of more trees than would have been killed in its absence. Don't forget- most homeowners with veteran trees are not as rich as Gov. Abbott. They may not have the money to maintain a large tree. And let's not pretend that every tree over 19" diameter is an asset. Many of them are huge liabilities, often depending on species.

People will typically find ways around laws they deem silly or unjust. Even if the goal of the law is admirable.
Maintaining large trees does not take a lot of money if the contractor is experienced and does not gouge.

"Many of them are huge liabilities", to a defect-focused observer who oversells removal.

I get the part about protection ordinances backfiring out of owner resistance to govt interference. It takes education about the assets in trees to overcome that.
 
#18
I agree with Abbott on this and many other things. IMO, he has been the best governor TX has had in a long long time. You can cut down the trees as long as you pay money to some bureaucracy? Sure, that is is "conservation".

If people that want to encourage property owners to keep and maintain trees, they should push for property tax exemptions for land owners. But they wont, because its not about trees, its about money and control. Notice how the article didn't mention anything about conservation groups volunteering their time/money to maintain these trees, absorb the cost of insurance, or engineering cost to keep the trees, etc.

Forcing people to keep/maintain trees under threat of violence and against their will is.....wrong.

Also, trees save cities billions of dollars ehhh? Wonder how they came up with that number. Pretty sure they are very expensive to taxpayers. I know from personal experience that they are rather expensive to maintain and clean up after.

I very much enjoy trees and do my best to maintain them but that is my choice to make.
About the most commonsensical post I've seen on the subject. I live in a very sparsely populated county and even here one city government charges it's citizens to remove any tree on their property just because they can. Their "inspector" couldn't tell a laurel from a live oak. I can't speak for other areas, but here, it's all about the money.
 

oldoakman

Well-Known Member
#20
Th
About the most commonsensical post I've seen on the subject. I live in a very sparsely populated county and even here one city government charges it's citizens to remove any tree on their property just because they can. Their "inspector" couldn't tell a laurel from a live oak. I can't speak for other areas, but here, it's all about the money.
There has to be a happy medium, the trouble is finding it.
 
Top