I’m saddened to report that we showed up today at the Council Chamber, fought the good fight, and came away with a very disappointing result. After PPW’s brief presentation, all of the other speakers were opposed to the Parks & Parkways ordinance.
- Mary Mysing-Gubala (MCNO) listed “numerous inadequacies and omissions,” including no transparency, no cooperation among departments and contractors, no advance notice of tree removals, no comprehensive tree management plan, no authority to withhold or revoke permits from repeat violators.
- I characterized the ordinance as a “shell” because it was so devoid of meaningful tree protections and its creation as a “shell game,” moving around verbiage from the 1956 City Code without making changes of much value.
- Scott Howard (Parks for All) questioned why the Council felt compelled to push this ordinance through to passage today, even after receiving public comments from tree advocates who felt “blindsided” by short notice.
- Susannah Burley (SOUL) ratified Scott’s question about why the Council felt compelled to pass the ordinance today and in the face of united community opposition. She also called for the implementation of a comprehensive tree management plan.
Those on the dais listened politely to what we had to say, then voted 5-0 to pass the ordinance despite united community opposition. Councilmember Harris commented before moving for final passage that[, quoting Voltaire,] we shouldn’t let “the perfect” get in the way of “the good.” That would be a pertinent observation if this highly imperfect instrument approximated “the good,” but it doesn’t.
Wish I had better news to report, but it is what it is. The next development will be a negotiating session between tree advocates and the department on April 15. We’ll let you know how that turns out and would be happy to report that stronger tree protections lie ahead. Safe to say, there’s plenty of unoccupied space left for growth in that direction.
Best,
David Marcello
dmarcello@tcnola.org
Leave a Reply