Trees deserve to be treated better by city leaders

The ExpressNews recently ran an article on the clear-cutting of trees in San Antonio. It was accompanied by revealing photographs that showed many acres of scraped land, bare as a moonscape, except for a tiny group of forlorn trees.

The article described how this sacrilege was done under the color of law by obtaining a “variance” from San Antonio’s tree ordinance. Statistics show these variances are easily obtained. At the time of the article the score was: Developers, 206; Trees, 0. The very week following the parent article, the newspaper reported two more variances were requested, and ... granted. So, updated figures show Developers, 208; Trees, 0. There is no recent record of any requested variance that was ever turned down.

These 208 variances allowed many thousands of trees to be clear-cut. Thus, noble trees that took 100 years to grow, are scraped away like troublesome weeds.

This is a disaster for San Antonio and its citizens. The ill effects of substituting green, shady beauty for a desert puts a blight on our city that will outlive most of its citizens.

San Antonio enjoys a reputation for being a beautiful, healthy place. It is a place blessed by nature: an ample source of clear, clean water, and many trees to shade us in our hot summers and shield us from the chill polar winds that come our way in the winter. These assets made our city. The original settlers, the Indians, came here 10,000 years ago for that reason. They were followed by the Spaniards and Mexicans, exhausted by their trip across the 400 miles of the northern Mexican desert. They must have thought they had reached heaven when they saw these towering oaks, cypresses and clear streams of running water. They stayed. After a while, the Anglos came. They stayed, too.

Trees are one of nature’s masterpieces. They are a natural partner of man and other animals: nature’s lungs. They devour carbon dioxide and produce oxygen.

Developers select the properties they want to develop. If they don’t think they can successfully develop it, they go elsewhere. Too often, they regard trees as nothing more than a nuisance. They get an easy variance, strip away the vegetation, pour concrete, build the houses and move on to the next development. No thought is given to the emotional wellbeing of the owner, or the beautification of the city.

It is a job of all city officials to promote our city for new businesses and citizens. There is striving to compete with other cities, bring in new jobs and be a desirable place to live. CEOs want this, as do their spouses and families. This universal desire carries more weight in final decisions than does

“cheap labor”.

Knowing what people want, our spokespeople, accompanied by prospective CEOs, head directly to the river. Why? It’s charming. A lovely river, flowing between noble, magnificent cypresses and oak trees, is impressive. We also take visitors through the heavily treed King William or Monte Vista neighborhoods. Both of these areas have trees overarching the streets, creating a pleasant, cool place. It is the city of our heart. Sometimes, it closes the deal.

Why not strive for that atmosphere everywhere? Of course, not all of our citizens are financially able to live in these expensive homes. But the trees can be grown everywhere. Even the humblest home is enriched by a magnificent tree in the yard.

Every official and citizen has a duty to zealously protect our trees. We must be the guardian angels of what we were so bountifully given. Variances to our tree ordinance should be rare: seldom given and only after public scrutiny. A requested variance to a development should only be given after a majority of the City Council votes to do so, following a public discussion. (Private homes are excluded from this process.)

In Milestone v. City of San Antonio, 298 S.W.3d 242 (Tex. App. 2009), the city of San Antonio sued and won a lawsuit against a clear-cut developer. The decision stood up on appeal and established the principle that the city can extend their tree ordinances to the extraterritorial jurisdiction and enforce them.

District 9 Councilman John Courage has said he wants to have a reasoned decision before developers clear-cut the property. Of course he does. Once a tree is cut down, nothing can be done. Planting a sapling to replace a fully grown tree is a pitiful swap and should be rejected.

It is time for our citizens to control our tree destiny now and in the future. We have that right. Use it.