Dalton removes downtown trees because they are “too messy”
07/20/07 • Posted in: Activism, Downtown Jacksonville, Eco by Joey Marchy 9 Comments »
Special thanks to Folio for inspiring two eco related posts on the same day.
Folio reported this week that:
Jim Dalton of the Dalton Agency heralded his company’s arrival downtown with a plan to remove part of the urban canopy.
He successfully lobbied the JEDC to allow him to remove three oaks in front the building at Laura and Monroe (the old Boomtown location). Nice. Nothing says welcome to the neighborhood like cutting down trees. Just ask the City just who spent countless thousands on restoring the Springfield canopy. No doubt someone thought it was a good idea to cut all those trees down too.
According to Jacksonville’s own tree protection ordinance amendment*, passed in 2000, all large hardwood trees with a 3-foot circumference or greater will be protected. A 3-foot circumference also equals a “dbh” (diameter at breast height) of 11.5 inches.
Eenie meenie miney moe
However this ordinance simply encourages and promotes the protection and conservation of existing trees. It does not prevent these types of trees from being removed. So lets look at some options for not cutting the trees down:
- Trim them so they don’t look so messy
- Contribute to the city’s Tree Protection and Related Expenses Trust Fund which provides for the planting or replanting of trees
- Plant some less messy trees of equal stature
- Pay a landscape architect to design something to accent and play off the trees
- Stop hating the earth
JEA’s brochure on trees says:
Surprisingly, trees can also help improve water quality in rivers, streams and lakes. A tree’s extensive root system holds soil in place, reducing erosion caused by rainfall. This process reduces the amount of soil that washes into our precious waterways.
Isn’t our “most valuable resource”, the St. Johns River, just 5 blocks away? Wouldn’t the river stand to benefit from the trees remaining in place? JEA seems to think so.
I could not find a link to the ordinance on the COJ site so I don’t know if it’s still active.
You can find the Jax landscape code via Municode…more specifically, here:
http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?pid=12174&sid=9
You will have to dig down to Chapter 656 | Zoning Code; Part 12; Subpart B; Sec. 656.1205. I find it hard to believe that they could remove the existing trees without some mitigation; even in the downtown area. Then again, stranger things have happened.
Thank you.
p.s. - nice reference of Landscape Architects; we don’t usually get referenced…it’s usually a landscaper or something silly like that.
They probally want the trees gone so people can see their logo. They are a design agency after all.
i’m going to bring some hammocks to them. That should solve this problem. hammocks are comfortable!
The original ‘Park Place’ sign can’t be seen fully with the amount of growth…I tried getting a shot for an entry weeks ago but couldn’t get a single shot without branches in view blocking it.
Trimming and pruning would be acceptable. With the folliage across the street on the sidewalk, it’d blend. Take out these trees and it’d look pretty bare…not to mention having to either ‘patch’ the big holes or redo the entire sidewalk section there.
Cutting down trees these days may be considered a capitol crime, but in this instance I have to agree with the Dalton Agency if they are talking about the trees in the middle of the sidewalk. I hope they are keeping the ones along the curb.
The trees in the middle of the sidewalk should never have been planted there in the first place. I don’t have much sympathy for this sensationalist, eco-indignant attitude. It only displays a narrow understanding of the spectrum of issues. I’ve been around long enough to see this type of grandstanding doesn’t help their cause. Environmental advocacy works at much deeper levels than tree hugging.
Start with bio-fuels. There’s a global environmental disaster waiting/already happening. Already the market is deciding do we feed people or do we pour it into our gas tanks? Do we preserve tropical forests, or do we cut it down to grow bio-fuel crops (Brazil and Indonesia)?
If they are taking out only three trees then shouldnt the canopy remain mostly intact.
I would think a good design agency would be able to cultivate some of the trees and create a corporate image that utilizes the unique presentation.
not that they need any branding help. seems to be the go to firm for GOB politicans.
It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to realize they are doing this for one reason and one reason only. To increase visibility of their building and/or logo.
AT LEAST they didn’t try to make the argument that the tress were diseased or something.
Great precedent to set too. I guess this gives case law to cutting trees in other DT locations as well.
Jax SUX
This is absolutely absurd…I’ve witnessed this same thing occur in suburban parking lots, where trees were removed due to birds populating them…
how about instead of ripping the poor, defenseless trees out, they build a tree house which can also double as a reception desk and waiting area?