Mount Vernon Optic-Herald

The loss of property rights was echoed by each of those voicing objections to the City of Mount Vernon’s proposed tree preservation ordinance. A dozen local property owners spoke against the ordinance at the city’s public hearing Tuesday, Nov. 24.
A full gallery of people greeted the council members, most from the area of the city from Hwy. 37 to Holbrook St. and from Yates to Rutherford streets.
“This might be good from a commercial stand point, if a developer came in and started cutting every tree in site,” Rae Harper said. “It seems a step too far to tell home owners what they can or cannot do on their own property.”
“This ordinance sounds like what a gated area would have as restrictions. We are not a gated area,” Natalie Dooley stressed. “If it is trees we are trying to save, I wonder how many trees it took to print all this,” she added, as she held up a copy of the 25 page ordinance provided to attendees.
Dale Sellers questioned whether the ordinance was development friendly. “If this ordinance is passed it could add thousands of dollars to the cost of a house,” Mr. Sellers said. “Regardless of grants or beautification this might bring, it is not worth giving up property owner rights.”
Property owner and real estate broker Tom Ramsay spoke against the ordinance as being too comprehensive. He suggested several changes that would soften the effects. One primary proposal called for wooden rather than masonry fencing to separate residential and commercial areas with the fencing required on the commercial property.
Jasper Scott asked that other cities’ ordinances be reviewed more closely before finalizing such an ordinance in Mount Vernon. He noted that both San Antonio and Garland exempted single family residences from their tree preservation ordinances.
“I hate all trees, but you tell me I have to plant one?” Charles Clark queried.
Billy and Veronica Jordan, who recently purchased a house and almost five heavily wooded acres inside the city’s limits, agreed that some protection was needed for large trees along roadsides. They were apprehensive of anything limiting their choices of what was needed for improvements on the property.
“Landscaping is not something you can do immediately on a limited income in six months,” Mrs. Jordan said.
Margaret and Walter Sears  noted that as one of the community’s landlords, owning multiple properties, they had to trim and sometimes remove trees on an almost daily basis to maintain those properties.
“We have a sizeable investment in this community. You say you are business friendly; this is not business friendly; take that out if this (ordinance is passed),” Mr. Sears exclaimed.  He asked that the ordinance proposal be withdrawn.
A presentation was made by members of the city staff showing the assistance provided by trees and shrubs in protecting soil and streets from storm water runoff damage. Trees also provide a 25 percent or greater savings on heating and cooling bills for most structures. Numbers also indicate that tree filled neighborhoods have lower levels of domestic violence and a safer more sociable environment.
Councilman B. F. Hicks stated that he agreed with many of the statements made by those at the hearing. “As several of you also indicated, we need something. The ordinance is in the computer system. It can be revised. We may need a citizen committee before we are through,” he concluded.
Councilwoman Darlene Hatcher stated that she was the first one bothered by the contents of the ordinance.  “My husband told me you better do something, else we are moving,” Councilwoman Hatcher related. “Yes, we need to grow, but we need to allow things that will allow growth. You can’t have a lot of restrictions if you don’t have the homes.”
All the council members expressed appreciation for input from the community. “Too often we are here without any comment received on these proposals,” Mayor J. D. Baumgardner stressed.
The ordinance will be further reviewed and changes proposed. It is expected that a revised version of the ordinance will be presented for a hearing in early 2010.
- Lillie Bush-Reves ’09