Opponents call the changes a developer giveaway that will weaken tree laws and hamper efforts to enhance canopy.
Facing heated opposition from environmental and civic groups, the City Commission on Thursday deferred its discussion on a proposal to weaken the City of Miami’s tree protection laws. The item will be taken up at the Commission’s December 12 meeting.
Critics say the proposed changes would remove some permitting requirements for tree removal within construction sites, loosen city oversight of existing tree laws, and reduce tree-planting mandates after trees are removed or relocated.
The new ordinance would also replace the city’s Tree Trust Fund – an account to operate tree-planting programs across the city – with a new, unrestricted account that could be tapped for general use.
Miami District 1 commissioner Miguel Gabela, who sponsored the proposed changes, requested the deferral, which was approved without discussion. Gabela did not respond to a request for comment from the Spotlight.
The Coconut Grove Village Council, the Urban Paradise Guild and other civic groups have been encouraging residents citywide to contact Gabela’s office to voice their disapproval of the changes.
“This is very alarming, and so sudden” says Sandy Moise, Director of Education and Policy for the Urban Paradise Guild, a Miami-based group that promotes programs and policies to mitigate the effects of climate change. “It seems to be very pro-development, from what I can see.”
District 2 Commission Damian Pardo, who represents Coconut Grove, tells the Spotlight he will oppose efforts to water down the city’s tree protection laws. “Currently, we are not supportive of the proposed changes to the Tree Ordinance,” Pardo said in a written statement. “We believe there are issues with essential protections for trees, enforcement, and accountability standards, as well as mitigation and other inconsistencies that could harm the city’s long-term environmental goals. Our office is committed to preserving and protecting the tree canopies across the City of Miami.”
The city’s Tree Trust Fund was created in 2004 to promote the city’s urban tree canopy through tree-giveaways and tree-planting programs. Operating funds come from fines paid by property owners and developers for improper tree cutting and removal and from mitigation fees paid when trees are lawfully removed with city approval.
Such was the case a year ago when Coconut Grove resident David Martin, CEO of Grove-based development firm Terra, and his wife Christina agreed to pay $117,000 into the fund after being cited for removing 71 trees without a permit.
How much the fund presently contains – and how the money is being spent – is anyone’s guess. Since April, city officials have refused multiple requests from the Spotlight for financial records pertaining to the Tree Trust Fund. City Attorney George Wysong, whose office oversees public records requests, did not respond to an email earlier this month seeking information on the fund’s finances.
Historically, the Tree Trust Fund has had no shortage of revenues. Between 2015 and 2018 (the most recent available data) the fund collected well over $1 million a year. And yet, during the same period very little was spent, just an average of about 7 percent of annual revenues — despite a requirement spelled out in the city code that all funds be exhausted each calendar year.
That requirement is quietly being removed, says Moise and others opposed to the new ordinance. Rather than a fund earmarked for enhancing the city’s urban canopy, funds could be diverted to other uses at the city manager’s discretion.
Under the present code, no less than 80 percent of the fund must be used for tree plantings and giveaway programs – things that directly enhance tree canopy – as a way to support the city’s stated goal of expanding its urban tree canopy from an estimated 16 percent in 2016 to 30 percent by 2030.
There’s still a way to go. While overall citywide tree canopy is now estimated at roughly 20 percent, total tree cover in Coconut Grove has declined nine percent between 2016 and 2020 (the last year for which data is available) to just under a third of the total area.
$117,000 sounds like a lot of money, but in actuality, this is a HUGE reduction, most likely an 75%-85% reduction in what they should have paid for removing 71 trees. I wonder who calculated how much their fine would be, and why the city was so incredibly lenient on them for removing 71 trees? When you purchase a property, you know what trees exist on it, and have a responsibility to understand that there is an ordinance in place to protect the trees for a reason. If the property is not appropriate for the desired design, perhaps alter the design or find a different property. I have seen some spectacular designs in Coconut Grove in which houses were designed around existing trees. The end result is exquisite, and they are a true model of harmony between development and nature.