Op-Ed: Wanting to protect our mature trees and welcoming green spaces is not code for “don’t build homes"
Saturday, February 15, 2025
 |
| Trees are the view Photo by Christine Southwick |
I suspect that many, if not most, of the readers of Shoreline Area News also read The Seattle Times.
However, in this late winter of Middle Housing enthusiasm, reconsidering tree codes, and discussions of the importance of getting folks out of their cars as much as possible, I’d like to share part of an long article published the end of January:
More concrete, less green: A cautionary tale about upzoning from South Park
By Alex Fryer January 24, 2025 Publication: Seattle Times.
…. “In fiery City Hall remarks at a Jan. 6 meeting, Councilmember Cathy Moore took on what she considered weakness in the comp plan regarding affordability and trees.
"I'm going to be looking at this with the eye of — does this in fact produce affordable housing? What I've seen so far is that it does not. And simply equating density with affordability is a lie. It's a myth,"
Moore said from the dais."The other thing that's critically important that I'll be looking at this plan is trees. Again, people diminish trees as a NIMBY issue. They are not a NIMBY issue. They are an ecological necessity and I think unfortunately the building industry has been able to capture the dialogue on affordability and trees, and they've been very successful in pitting trees against affordability and they're not either-or. They can very much coexist, and that's our goal is to coexist in this city.”
I’m new to Shoreline politics and trends, but am deeply concerned by the destruction of so many large trees in the area, as well as the obvious extensive increase in impervious surfaces, even in the short time we’ve been here.
From a climate change perspective this seems incredibly shortsighted. I don’t need to review for Shoreline Area News readers the numerous benefits of mature trees in terms of temperature control, storm water mitigation, water table protection, pollution control, air quality improvement - not to mention beauty and wildlife.
To assume that efforts to protect these trees means that it’s nothing more than a means to stop builders or restrict affordable housing is absurd…. but very effective.
Wanting to protect our mature trees and welcoming green spaces is not code for “don’t build homes" - especially affordable efficient homes for young families and those of us who are in our last decades.
There are many techniques and ways to design new housing that minimize the destruction of large trees. Are builders used to doing it? Apparently not. Is it more expensive? Yes. Does it take some imagination and effort? Of course. Is it possible? Absolutely.
Should we do it? If we care about the quality of life for our kids and grandkids, I believe we must.
Trish Woollcott
Shoreline
Wanting to protect our mature trees and welcoming green spaces is not code for “don’t build homes" - especially affordable efficient homes for young families and those of us who are in our last decades.
There are many techniques and ways to design new housing that minimize the destruction of large trees. Are builders used to doing it? Apparently not. Is it more expensive? Yes. Does it take some imagination and effort? Of course. Is it possible? Absolutely.
Should we do it? If we care about the quality of life for our kids and grandkids, I believe we must.
Trish Woollcott
Shoreline
Posts
13 comments:
Thank you for this! Please consider running for the city council!
Great article. Go for it. Really good, appealing approach to the value of trees and vegetation for all income groups and also for commercial buildings.
Thank you so much for this!Having lost some very mature trees fr a sidewalk to go in across the street I do wish they would have looked at ways to accommodate at least some of those beauties.
Just look at the new homes outside the Saltwater Park. Zero trees.
The entire "growth vision" in Shoreline is beginning to ruin the place. It's like some radical urban planner has been unleashed.
Please send your comments to the City Council.
Thank you Trish! And I'd like to point out that saving trees does not have to make houses cost more, if it's planned in advance. Many cities require a tree inventory and plan to save those trees up front when there's a development permit. Planning to save the trees, and engaging an arborist throughout the process to ensure they aren't damaged, has a negligible impact on building costs. In fact, Portland's Urban Forestry Dept did a deep dive on their Large Tree Amendment (which protects most big trees on development lots) and found it had virtually no impact on cost (.062 percent!) Plans that retain large trees when viable should not just be for high-end custom home builds--it can and should be for every project. Thanks again for this great piece!
We need more and louder tree advocates on Shoreline City Council, rather than the high profile realtor who has registered to replace John Ramsdell. He will stand to profit from upzoning and development, clearly creating a conflict of interest. Bad news for trees.
agreed on shoreline planners "run amock" and the belief that density = affordability. Look at NYC and SF, both super dense, not too many tress and way unafffordable, dont be duped by the planners "theory du jour" !
Great letter! Between the building industry holding sway over the politicians and the public, and private equity buying up our homes, building everywhere will never create enough, if any, affordable housing. We’ll be left with few trees and yards, ugly buildings and little parking. Only the wealthy neighborhoods are allowed to keep their trees and yards and their pricey homes won’t be demolished.
Great article, and spot on. Many of us moved to Shoreline because of the trees and are astonished and quite upset by the codes and cutting that has been allowed recently. Not to mention the increased hardscapes and ugly condos and houses that are slapped up in the false promise of “increasing affordable housing.” More housing does not make it magically affordable. What will the city do with that reality?
Even if the lie that they're creating affordable housing was true, what they would be doing is what is already happening everywhere else: forcing people on low incomes into places without any green. Even just talking about temperature control and air pollution, this kind of thing is what lowers working class people's life expectancy. Don't let them get away with it.
If developers can take out all the trees, maybe they could include something to ameliorate the loss of the trees on the lot - how about solar, green roofs, permeable parking/driveways, cisterns, something? Anything that might be little more eco-friendly?
Post a Comment