Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
A Times Editorial
© St. Petersburg Times, published March 6, 2002
Note to readers
With local election campaigns under way in several North Pinellas cities, we remind our readers of the St. Petersburg Times' policy regarding election-related letters to the editor: The Times does not print letters that endorse or criticize announced candidates for city offices. However, the Times is happy to receive and print letters that focus on campaign issues.
Have you ever wondered why shopping center developers mow down every tree in sight, then put in shadeless parking lots that turn shoppers' cars into sun-fueled ovens?
Because it's easier, of course.
Because it's cheaper, too.
And because they can fit more parking spaces on less land.
But perhaps there is another reason: because local governments let them get away with it.
Look at what is going on at the old Clearwater Mall site, which soon will be developed into an outdoor shopping plaza.
The developer, the Sembler Co., plans to cut down more than 600 trees that now stand on the 74-acre property, leaving only about 100 of the existing trees. A spokeswoman for the developer says they are saving "as many trees as humanly possible."
After cutting down the mature trees, the Sembler Co. plans to plant more than 900 trees. But those trees will be much smaller, incapable of providing any time soon the shade that Florida shoppers crave in hot weather.
The city staff didn't like earlier Sembler plans that called for even more trees to be removed and says the latest plan is an improvement. It is commendable that the staff rejected the earlier proposals.
But meanwhile, the city is giving serious consideration to changing city rules so the Semblers and future developers will have an easier time getting rid of mature trees on their properties -- something that is too easy already.
Current rules say that if you want to cut down a tree that has a 10-inch trunk, you can replace it with smaller trees that add up to a 10-inch diameter. Or you can pay $48 for each inch not replaced. The Sembler Co. wanted more flexibility, so the city is considering giving the city planning director authority to okay destruction of trees that are diseased, hazardous or non-native species, without ordering any replacement. Who will decide whether a tree is diseased or a hazard?
Furthermore, the city is considering another change that would allow developers to plant smaller "shade trees" that are 10 feet tall and 2.5 inches in diameter rather than the current 12 feet tall and 4-inch diameter. City officials explain that they are considering this change because developers had trouble finding the 12-foot trees.
It is troubling that Clearwater wants to backtrack on its tree ordinance. Surely, the trend should be in the other direction.
For years, area arborists have lamented Clearwater's declining tree canopy, a problem brought on not only by dense development, but by diseases in certain tree species and the end of the life span of some species that were planted by the city many years ago.
In response, Clearwater approved a tree ordinance that set forth the conditions under which trees could be cut down, and when and how they had to be replaced. Not only businesses, but homeowners were subject to the new rules.
Over time, the city's tree and landscaping codes were tweaked to add requirements for the care of replacement landscaping materials in commercial areas so that business owners could not put in the required greenery and then just let it die.
These codes ought to remain strong, and they must be enforced. There is a lot more at stake than just the comfort of people who will shop at the new development on the Clearwater Mall property.
Clearwater is built out now and is entering the important redevelopment phase. It is a fact that sometimes concessions must be made to encourage quality redevelopment projects. For example, building heights sometimes must be higher to account for exorbitant land costs; required development fees sometimes have to be waived to encourage redevelopment of undesirable properties.
But on the subject of trees, concessions are not needed and could be harmful. Clearwater must protect its existing large trees and build its inventory of large, hardy species for the future.
There are good environmental reasons to grow the city's tree canopy -- temperatures are warming and air pollution is a greater challenge, and trees can help with both problems. But there are aesthetic reasons as well. If Clearwater is to continue to attract tourists, it must be a beautiful place to visit. That means we need more trees, not fewer.