9 Responses to “perhaps the Urban Forestry Division should consider a new name”

1. posted by lynne at October 5, 2008 10:40 pm :
   

   would this be required for trees planted on personal property, as well?

   wouldn’t this also be in opposition to the Downtown Master Plan’s cityscaping, as well? we should be rallying for more trees, not less. this proposed legislation is quite disappointing.

2. posted by nick at October 6, 2008 12:36 am :
   

   This sounds similar to the Commonwealth’s no parking within 25 feet of an intersection rule (which seems lazily enforced in Richmond). This improves visibility and safety at intersections while reducing the maintenance requirements for trees that would interfere with utility lines.

   I think it would be a bit odd to assume that the legislation is against trees for tree’s sake. It prevents builders from installing trees that then become the burden of the city to maintain.

3. posted by john_m at October 6, 2008 6:30 am :
   

   The source for the NRN post may have some of the details wrong. A person close to Urban Forestry says that:

   That ordinance with these specifics passed in 1992,it is not new the challenge to it is.

   Just helping to get the record straight.

   Can anyone describe with more detail than that what is actually going on?

4. posted by Chewbacca at October 6, 2008 8:41 am :
   

   “NO MORE TREES! Not now, NOT EVER.” I think this is the city policy.

5. posted by UnionHill RVA at October 6, 2008 3:14 pm :
   

   This crazy ordinance doesn’t surprise me considering how friggn’ difficult is was to get an answer out of City Hall on the extension of the Adopt-a-Tree program.

   I’m convinced that the Urban Forestry Dept is about as important to City Hall as the Farmers Market–not very. In fact, they wish it would just go-the-f___-away.

   No one down at 900 E. Broad really gives a shit about trees, local farmers…nor the taxpayers who value those entities.

6. posted by kevin at October 6, 2008 4:26 pm :
   

   Trees provide a sense of enclosure and comfort as well as much needed shade. A stroll down Hanover Ave in the Fan is infinitely more pleasurable than walking along Main St. through Monroe Ward. I wonder; Do the people creating these laws actually live in the city??

7. posted by Ramzi at October 6, 2008 5:14 pm :
   

   Is the wording on the ordinance correct as quoted? It appears to state the opposite of what is intended.

8. posted by JJ at October 7, 2008 9:11 am :
   

   According to city arborist, historic neighborhoods like Church Hill and Fan etc. are safe, as they are grandfathered. The trees there now are OK and they are not cutting down healthy trees to fit the above criteria.
   Our city arborist is working with the community to save and preserve the trees where and when possible.
   If you want more info or have questions join/become a Tree Stewart Program for the fall 2008, and attend trainings on trees, tree health and preservation of the urban forest and/or call or arborist: Norm Brown 646-6785.
   Additionally, you can contact or join Church Hill Planter’s at 644-1347, to get involved and get the most updated and accurate info.
   JJ

9. posted by Tom at October 7, 2008 10:14 am :
   

   The ordinance has been on the books since 1992. Whoever posted this is coming up to pass is flat wrong. It is coming up to be reviewed and discussed. The ordinance only says they won’t be replaced if they die or taken out in a wreck.

Leave a Comment