Miami tree removal ordinance changes unnecessary and tainted by lobbyistsPolitical Cortadito

The controversial and massive changes to Miami’s tree ordinance — which regulates the removal and pruning of trees — are seemingly unnecessary and, worse, directed by the development industry, which taints the legislation. Everyone knows that Commissioner Miguel Gabela, the dope they roped to sponsor this, is going to defer the vote at Thursday’s commission meeting.

Perhaps the existing ordinance could be tweaked a little, but this particular version of the legislation should be withdrawn (read: burned in a bonfire) because it appears, from public meetings and emails first made public by WLRN, that it has been specifically tailored to meet the needs of developers and the building industry.

Dozens of people spoke at the sunshine meeting called by Commissioner Damian Pardo last week, almost unanimously against the measure which is meant to streamline the permitting process for homeowners who want to remove trees from their property. But two people spoke in favor: Truly Burton, executive vice president of the Builders Association of South Florida, and lobbyist Melissa Tapanes Llahues, BASF president and longtime board member, and a frequent representative for many big developers.

Tapanes Llahues got up and almost spoke out of turn. She thinks she’s special. Pardo told her to wait until it was time for her to speak.

Burton said she was there to “clarify misinformation” because “neither the Builders Association of South Florida or anyone else on my board has colluded… on this item.”

Tapanes Llahues said she was there as a Coconut Grove homeowner and that she takes many cases pro-bono. That might be true, but she could also have a vested interest in those cases, like she has here. And she was very defensive about her involvement, which, again, has been documented in emails.

“The Builders Association of South Florida, myself included, learned of this ordinance when it appeared on the agenda,” she said, calling those who think she was lobbying without registering ignorant.

“We all want to protect the tree canopy,” Tapanes Llahues said. “Developers, builders, they plant these trees. Just like they build homes, they build schools, they build hospitals, they build our community.”

It was the second time, at least, that Tapanes made comments on behalf of the developers and in favor of the ordinance. At the commission meeting where this was discussed in December, Tapanes thanked Gabela for working with them on it.

“I’d like to just say that Commissioner Gabela has been working with the industry,” Tapanes said at the meeting. “We’re working with the commissioners’ office to make it reasonable for both developers and property owners.”

Caught with his political pants down, Gabela told WLRN that he had not spoken to Tapanes or any developers about the tree ordinance. “There is no collusion here, let me make it clear. I did not ask them to come. I haven’t had any conversation pertaining to the tree ordinance with Melissa Tapanes.”

But the emails from Tapanes and the Builders Association to his staff show that there has been some collaboration. And Tapanes was not registered to lobby for the tree ordinance during this email exchange. It was only the day of the Dec. 12 meeting that she registered as a lobbyist after speaking at the meeting. The registration was not stamped by the clerk’s office til Dec. 16.

The industry’s involvement should cause everyone pause. Even more pause should be given to the fact that the ordinance changes don’t seem to be necessary. Gabela and city officials say they are trying to make it easier for homesteaded property owners to remove trees that can block the addition of a pool or circular driveway. Well, that can be done on a case-by-case basis without making blanket changes that allow developers to remove trees with impunity. Any homeowner who is about to sell could, under the proposed changes, clear the lot, making it more valuable to developers who can build with a larger footprint.

Several citizens who spoke said the real problem was with permitting and code enforcement to address the people who call cousin Robertico or Manolito to cut their trees at midnight on Sunday, like Pardo says happens all the time. Some people said code enforcement had to work harder and penalties should be higher.

The 28 pages of changes are confusing and seem to allow for too much tree removal, residents agreed. They almost unanimously took exception to a change that allows a landscape architect, rather than an arborist, inspect and make the determination on a tree’s viability.

“There are so many things that have been deleted… which makes the ordinance a little loose, and I think it has to be tight,” said Debbie Dolson. “You can’t leave places for loopholes.”

Cristina Colon, a biology professor, said the city was creating a “slippery slope” in favor of development. “A landscape architect does not have the training of knowledge of an arborist. “This is tantamount to saying if you need a root canal, you can have it done by your dentist or by the receptionist.”

The ordinance already allows for 25% pruning and there are hardship exemptions already available. Morningside activist Sandy Moise said she had asked the city for how many hardships had been applied for. No answer.

“The public has lost trust,” Moise said at last week’s sunshine meeting. “It feels shady,” she said of the ordinance changes.

Political Cortadito called Assistant Building Director Jose Regalado, brother of the county commissioner, and emailed him and Building Director Ed Santamaria (former assistant city manger in Coral Gables) to ask how the tree fund dollars, paid mostly by developers who are allowed to remove trees, had collected and where those dollars have gone. No answer.

But the changes to the ordinance include a diversion of those dollars to the general fund — 50% the first year and 20% each year after that.

At last week’s sunshine meeting, Regalado said that the “main purpose of this was to simplify the process for residents and businesses” and that the majority of changes were to add exemptions in the Miami-Dade County code. He also said that in the past five years, 8,310 trees had been removed, 12,312 had been planted and another 1,676 had been relocated. These figures did not, however, include trees planted in the right of way or through the tree trust fund.

There are a lot of unknowns and this new ordinance is just not ready.

A group of 19 residents signed a letter to commissioners this week, asking them to completely withdraw the item until more work could be done.

“This agenda item, developed by the Building Department with input from the developer community, represents deeply flawed legislation that will significantly weaken protections for our trees and undermine Miami’s vital tree canopy. The current Tree Ordinance is not the issue. The problems lie in its implementation. Addressing these issues through proper management and operations is the real solution to improving outcomes for both residents and the environment.”

Specifically, they recommended addressing inefficiencies and delays in the permitting process that apply not only to tree removals but other needs, simplifying the process to apply for existing hardship exemptions and eliminating the $1.500 appeal fee for residents.

“Weakening the Tree Ordinance at a time when Miami’s tree canopy averages just 17-18% citywide — far short of the 30% goal set in 2009 — is both irresponsible and contrary to the best interests of residents. Trees are essential for combating extreme heat, reducing flooding, improving air quality, and enhancing property values. The proposed changes prioritize developers at the expense of Miami’s long-term sustainability and livability for its residents.”

The residents feel that deferring the item over and over again is just a political tactic meant to wear the public out, in hopes that they stop resisting and showing up to the meetings.

“Enough is enough,” said Downtown Neighbors Association President James Torres. “Public records reveal that lobbyists and developers are leading the way in crafting this ordinance. The endless deferrals are not about improving the proposal—they’re about wearing down residents who are fighting to protect Miami’s tree canopy.”

If there is a deferral, they request a six-month deferral to study the inefficiencies and challenges and create a working group of stakeholders to include the Miami Climate Resilience Committee — which has recommended denial of the changes — and the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board as well as certified arborists, non-profits and county officials.

“We remind you that you were elected to represent the residents of the City of Miami. The overwhelming feedback from your constituents is clear: withdraw this agenda item and focus on strengthening, not weakening, protections for our vital tree canopy,” the letter ends. “Residents of Miami deserve to live in a city where tree-lined streets, shaded neighborhoods, and clean air are the standard, not a privilege reserved for a few. Strengthening the implementation of the existing Tree Ordinance, rather than dismantling it, is the path forward for a healthier, more resilient Miami.

“We hope you will act in the best interest of your constituents and the city we all call home.”

That’s a big ask.

The DNA will join other Miami residents who spoke at the sunshine meeting and representatives of environmental groups like the Sierra Club at City Hall Thursday morning for a press conference to challenge the changes in advance of the meeting.

The post Miami tree removal ordinance changes unnecessary and tainted by lobbyists appeared first on Political Cortadito.