How should Government save trees in Atlanta area development? (Kennesaw: neighborhoods, ferry)

[GF72]

I added a hideous pic of Gwinnett to my last post. I know tons people that live in neighborhoods like that, it looks even worse from street level....

[Arbor girl]

Start a tree watch in your neighborhoods! Tree planting, tree preservation - one yard at a time can make an unbelievable impact on our canopy.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by Arbor girl

Start a tree watch in your neighborhoods! Tree planting, tree preservation - one yard at a time can make an unbelievable impact on our canopy.

One of the reasons we decided to move into an older neighborhood in the suburbs is because it's half woods, almost literally. Look at all of the trees in our local area.

[meadgrad]

Transfer of development rights from metro atlanta forest/farm land owners to places where density makes sense, like Perimeter Center, midtown, Downtown, Buckhead, Decatur, Cumberland et al.

[Buckhead Betty]

The City of Atlanta does not enforce its toothless tree ordinance. We had one arborist out of a rather inadequate staff of four who worked in the field, and he was fired for occasionally denying a permit for tree removal. (The others never did. They seemed to despise trees as much as developers.)

The idea that Atlanta stops anyone from taking down healthy trees unnecessarily or actually requires trees to be replaced in a useful and environmentally helpful manner is self-deluding.

Please tell me how chopping down a 100-foot-tall 75 year-old-oak tree is mitigated by planting a dozen little saplings in an area where their roots will not have space to grow, they will receive no light and they cannot be watered due to restrictions?

[Psykomonkee]

I really don't know what to say about this subject. Hard subject.
BUT, I think it would be nice if the city required all new construction to plant CERTAIN TYPES of trees. They should all have to plant DOGWOOD trees

[Buckhead Betty]

Dogwood trees are basically ornamental. While I love to see them in bloom, they are merely part of Atlanta's booster identity and not helping the environmental devastation that overdevelopment has caused.

They are pretty for a few weeks in the spring, but they are not the answer to the city's loss of tree canopy. The native wild dogwoods had a disease a few years ago that caused thousands to die off. (Those that are planted now are less hardy in the zone and don't look the same.) Dogwoods don't grow large, contribute little to CO2, erosion control and reduction of temperature --heat island. We need a tree ordinance that is strong and enforced. If a tree is removed for a good reason, it should be replaced. Replacement trees should be selected with care as to species and location and should be maintained so that they will thrive.

However, it builders would put in dogwoods intstead of those wretched Bradford Pears at all their commercial and residential sites, I would definitely be all for that. Ban the Bradford Pear!

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by Buckhead Betty

However, it builders would put in dogwoods intstead of those wretched Bradford Pears at all their commercial and residential sites, I would definitely be all for that. Ban the Bradford Pear!

Yes! And that would make a difference. Dogwoods don't really do much for the canopy, but if dogwoods were in place instead of the Bradford pear...we would still get the desired effect.

[ymedley]

I'm trying to find out if you can cut a tree that already falling and poses a threat? There's one on the property that I'm renting and it has now cracked and seems to pose a real problem as its located directly over a bridge (the first part of our driveway). I am sure that the owners knew about it for years and didn't want to pay to have it taken down since it may take some real maneuvering because of where its positioned (it jets out from the bank of the creek and if it falls, will damage the integrity of the bridge and cost even more-but that's another story). Bottom line, can you just take down a tree that poses danger?

[Saintmarks]

Agree with previous posters (Aries in particular) that the 80s saw the prevalence of clear cutting and much smaller yard size due to higher density developments all around Atlanta. Some neighborhoods at least left a barrier between streets so there was a length of old growth at the back even though much of the front yard was leveled... at least better than a complete neighborhood leveled.

I think some of the more level land was bought first in the outer burbs which made it easier to build lots and not clear cut as much. As land became more expensive, the developers looked to land that was more slopoed and not only had to clear cut but grade the whole site to allow for as many lots as possible. Commercial developers did this as welll. One of my worst gripes was the way so much of the ridge that extends northward from Kennesaw Mountain that lines the southern side of Barrett Parkway in the Town Center area was leveled for retail development. There is a huge unsightly remainder of a ridge on Barrett just west of Bells Ferry Road between a bank and a strip center where both developers cut into the ridge at a severe angle from either side and left a thin strip between them... a severe slope on either side and a tiny little remnant of where the hill once stood at the top. Looks ridiculous.

So I get even more upset at the grading that is done that leaves the land pockmarked. At least trees will grow back.