Vowing to “get this right,” city officials deferred a vote on proposed changes to Miami’s tree protection laws while pushing back on allegations of a flawed process tainted by industry influence and lack of public input.
Relief for the ordinary homeowner? Or a giveaway to lot-clearing developers?
Those are the dueling narratives surrounding a proposed rewrite of Miami’s tree protection laws. And comments expressed at a packed City Hall meeting on Tuesday did little to bridge the divide.
“It’s two groups of residents,” Miami District 2 Commissioner Damian Pardo told the crowd of more than 100 who showed up to share their concerns about the code changes. “Residents that very much care about the canopy, and residents that care about the canopy but have other issues that are a priority.”
The controversial legislation, originally scheduled for a commission vote next Thursday, will be deferred to a future meeting, city officials announced Tuesday.
The gathering – a so-called Sunshine Meeting that would allow city commissioners to discuss official business without violating government transparency laws – was, by definition, a bust. Only one commissioner, Pardo, attended.
City staff in attendance said the changes, sponsored by Miami District 1 Commissioner Miguel Gabela, are still a work in progress, with changes expected following review of Tuesday’s comments and other public input.
That input was an overwhelming condemnation of the proposed changes, which are being coordinated by the city’s Building Department, which oversees tree removal permitting.
“We strongly oppose any move to reduce protection of trees in the city of Miami,” said Steve Capellini, speaking on behalf of Center Grove Neighbors, a newly formed civic group. “The proposed revisions to the tree ordinance will seriously threaten the city’s tree canopy, particularly in Coconut Grove.”
While some who spoke agreed that the existing tree ordinance places costly, unfair burdens on ordinary property owners, many cast blame on what they describe as the city’s administrative failures to apply and enforce its laws.
The fix, they argued, is not changes to the law, but better training and funding for the staff who oversee permitting and code enforcement.
Other speakers claimed the ordinance was fatally tainted by developer influence, noting recent reports of emails linking the draft legislation to a local development industry lobbyist. The lobbyist – land-use attorney Melissa Tapanes – acknowledged her involvement during a December City Commission meeting.
“Gabela has been working with the industry,” Tapanes told commissioners, speaking on behalf of the Builders Association of South Florida. “We’re working with the commissioner’s office to make [the tree ordinance] reasonable for both developers and property owners.”
Gabela’s chief of staff Frank Castaneda, who spoke at Tuesday’s meeting, acknowledged Tapanes’ involvement on the rewrite but downplayed its significance.
“She made some suggestions that were forwarded to the Building Department,” he said.
Pardo also pushed back on the suggestion that the legislation is driven by developer interests, noting the “misinformation” spreading through the community.
“This does not come from developers,” he said at Tuesday’s meeting. “Developers have not, at all, been the impetus for any of it. This comes from our staff. And our staff, for the last three and a half years have been back working on it.”
Not everyone is convinced.
Former Miami District 2 Commissioner Ken Russell, who held office three-and-a-half years ago when the rewrite began, tells the Spotlight that Building Department staff was working not on its own initiative but at the request of Miami District 4 Commissioner Manolo Reyes, who at one point floated a proposal to rescind the city’s tree ordinance entirely.
“Where an ordinance originates is important,” says Russell. “It tells you the motivation behind it.”
Russell says fundamental changes to city policy – such as eliminating permitting requirements for tree removal or, as is also being proposed, alternative uses for Tree Trust Fund revenues – are the domain of elected policymakers, not city staff tasked with drafting the legislation.
And to be sure, he argues, the invisible hand of development interest is found throughout the draft tree legislation. As an example, he points to provisions with little implication for ordinary property owners: broad tree removal entitlements for building construction “staging” and relaxed requirements for tree protections during demolitions.
“The narrative given to the public is that this legislation is being written to help streamline the permitting process for residents who have a hardship and that sounds great,” says Russell, who in 2017 pushed through legislation increasing fines for improper tree removal by non-homesteaded property owners.
“But the reality is that this actually enables the world of development to clearcut lots much more easily and much more quickly.”
Repeated calls from the audience Tuesday to withdraw the proposed changes and start anew, with a more egalitarian process, fell on deaf ears.
Pardo, the only commissioner who has gone on record expressing even mild reservations over the legislation as it now stands, told residents to trust the process.
“The existing ordinance is not working very well for many of our residents,” Pardo said. “When you withdraw the ordinance, it’s gone. I’d prefer we defer [a vote on the existing changes]. Defer until we get this right.”
TREE WATCH on Irvington Avenue
One of the most storied and beautiful family-oriented streets in South Grove has just come on the market for sale. 3736 Irvington Avenue is a 6,150 sq ft lot with a 1,350 sq ft cottage on it, and two magnificent heritage oaks in the front yard. This sale will highlight the struggle going on all over the Grove: Can our tree canopy ever resist the relentless redevelopment pressure?
What does “reasonable use” in our current Tree Ordinance mean? And what constitutes a “healthy” oak that would be somewhat protected under the proposed new ordinance that would give landscape architects the say-so instead of trained arborists?
Certainly, this lot could hold a new 2-story house, plus a swimming pool, without taking down either of the oaks, but not a 5,000 or 6,000 sq. ft house to maximize the profit. So we shall see.
Irvington neighbors should take a moment to stroll by the property as often as possible, especially on weekends and holidays, since that’s when most “mistakes” seem to happen.