City staff did research at the request of Council on the cost issue and found that it would add $1 to the mortgage. ONE DOLLAR! Mind you that there are numerous other ways in which a developer could save this dollar in other ways. At the public hearing on Tuesday, former Council member Goldie Wells stated the obvious reasons for including this portion of the ordinance: shade, air quality, aesthetics, etc.
I fail to see how this is a burden on anyone, let alone the developer. If the developer wants to compensate for the cost of planting the tree, they could plant less grass. Grass is much more expensive to maintain than a tree. It takes a lawnmower, gas, and fertilizer to maintain a lawn. A tree requires water and some occasional pruning. Many of our affordable home developments already suffer from a lack of trees. Glenwood is affordable housing (homes here sell in the neighborhood of $50k at the low end to $90k at the high end - much less than the median for the City), but what Glenwood does have is large, shade bearing trees. Imagining this neighborhood without these trees is ridiculous.
I would remind City Council that we have many ordinances on the books that are only policed by virtue of engaged citizens. If cost and cost alone is the issue, and not some underlying prejudice (I shudder at the potential of this explanation), then lets look at a partnership between the developer and the residents or the developer and a non-profit organization (a la Greensboro Beautiful) to make the one-tree rule work. Let's figure out a way that the citizens can reap the benefits of having trees. Right now the unfortunate message I'm hearing from City Council is that people who live in affordable housing are less deserving of trees than those people with more means and that is unacceptable.
