The tree ordinance is overbearing and way too restrictive. RW above says the city permitted him/her to remove two diseased/dying trees. So what? The trees were going to die anyway so what was the arborist going to do? How about a homeowner with a 3/4 acre lot over 50% is covered in mature trees (house built in the 1940s) being denied the ability to cut down ONE tree in a completely shaded and overgrown backyard to add a little sunshine? How about being denied the right to cut down an 80 foot tall pine hanging over the house because the arborist says the threat is not great enough (in their discretion) and not within 5 feet of the foundation? Do you people realize that the tree ordinance does not permit even 1 heatlhy tree to be cut down at the homeowner’s discretion even if you have a 3 acre lot covered in trees? The arborists by nature value trees over just about anything else and will deny just about any request for the removal of a healthy tree unless a lot of money is spent to plant another tree somewhere else (assuming the city actually even plants the trees). News alert- if a tree is 80 feet tall and is 20 feet away from the house it can still do massive damage to life and property but the city ordinance does not require the arborist to be reasonable. This tree ordinance is way too restrictive when a homeowner can’t cut down 1 healthy tree without paying compensense and getting an arborist to agree (which of course the arborist typically does not want to agree to ANY healthy tree removal). I am sure many of your reading this on Creative Loafing are fine with the idea of not even permitting 1 healthy tree to be removed from a suburban lot but anyone with common sense and a sense of reasonableness realizes this goes too far. I am not against trees and have no problem with tree replacement requirements for new development but this ordinance is draconian and is creating the non-enforcement backlash. This is what happens when government tries to enforce rules that are overbearing- just like prohibition back in the ’20s. People start ignoring the rules and working around the rules. The city needs to pass a reasonable tree ordinance that allows a homeowner to cut down a tree or two every so often without a overbearing nanny saying no to everything. Then the city could actually enforce the rules.

And how about letting Shirley make her own case that she can’t explain the Coffin firing for legal reasons, with a legal view from the other side of that issue?

Also, i’m suspecting our Pension funds are in the same predicament as ATL’s.

An assistant City Attorney tried to unlawfully expel a Councilman from the Police and Fire Pension Cmte meeting. I’m suspecting she feared too many tough questions on the exact status of our “fare” city’s Pension liabilities.

Don’t worry, if Bush can bail out Bear Sterns to the tune of $30 billion, he can bail out our municipal Pension Funds.

But we still need to get rid of City Attornies that try to expel Council Persons from meetings to apprently avoid sunlight.

Maybe someone can instruct her to go find the missing arborist and we can just lock the door to the Macon City Hall’s one and only Unisex bathroom behind her…

If you can think of better ideas, please chime in.

Its laughable to me that developers would criticize Atlanta of all places as having unfair obstacles to development. Aside from the formality of talking with the neighborhood groups there doesn’t seem to be any type of development that the city won’t approve. Of course there are codes and standards but compared to any other city (boston, chicago, new york, dc. new orleans, san fran) Atlanta is easy street for developers.