By David Crossley
Recently, a coalition of Houston area organizations called Houston Green commissioned a study of the region’s tree canopy that revealed significant losses in tree cover since 1972. The report quantified the lost benefits the trees would have provided in mitigating air pollution and stormwater flooding, and put that value at $275 million. The report is available at www.houstongreen.org.
Perhaps more significant than the money, the lost trees would have removed from the air some 15.3 million pounds of pollutants, including 6.55 million pounds of ozone. This is shocking, considering the region is preparing to pay for having removed those trees by lowering the speed limit, delaying construction work until noon each day, and a host of other bothersome remedies for our ozone problem.
On top of that, flooding is a major pain in the neck and removing those trees has exacerbated that problem.
There are a great many other issues, of course, including energy efficiency in homes and offices. The Houston Green study shows an annual savings in the region of some $26 million dollars attributable to trees and the highest per-home benefit the researchers - American Forests - have seen in the United States.
Street trees are a major component of the traditional design paradigm of pedestrian-oriented streetscapes, because they cool the walkway as well as provide safety from vehicle traffic (provided the trees are on the correct side of the sidewalk, not on the wrong side, where we often put them).
Property values are always higher where there are trees, and the national minimum increase is about 15 percent. When trees start to disappear from a neighborhood to be replaced by townhouses or starter castles, property values in the neighborhood begin to fall.
Of course they produce oxygen, which we need to breathe, and, finally, we just like them.
So it’s something of a wonder why developers view them as a nuisance and why even trees that are publicly owned are not really protected. People knowledgeable about trees also know that the City of Houston’s tree ordinances are essentially toothless, and that a driveway always takes priority over a tree, regardless of its age or value.
Many people cite as their worst tree horror story the sudden removal of all the trees at the southwest corner of Kirby and Richmond. Apparently that was once a real forest with old, very large trees, and they are said to have disappeared in a single day to allow the construction of what is often called the ugliest strip center in Houston. Indeed, trees have not been much of an issue in the Upper Kirby District, although the neighborhoods tend to have some, and certainly on streets like Virginia they’re plentiful.
Sooner or later, we in the region will have to begin to see trees as shared assets that perform valuable public services. Certainly, the city’s charge to protect public health and safety give it ample power to protect them in the public realm and probably in the private realm as well. Some smaller cities in the region have strict tree ordinances and occasionally deed restrictions deal with them.
The notion that trees are just a nuisance points at the long-standing acceptance of the idea that development is more important than human health or quality of life. Very few cities still have this attitude, and sooner or later Houston and the surrounding areas are going to have to come to grips with this issue in many areas, including tree protection.