Trees in cities have morphed from a “cudgel” that NIMBY pearl-clutchers use against new housing to essential climate infrastructure for urban residents. The real cudgel is the wedge the developer lobby has driven between advocates for density and advocates for urban trees. It apparently happened when Hanna Brooks Olsen, author of “Heat domes and shady politics: Trees are essential — so why do we use them as political pawns?” which appeared in the July 10 issue of Real Change, wasn’t looking. So we want to help with the latest data.
So far in 2024, Tree Action Seattle documented the loss of more than 1,000 trees in Seattle through notices filed by arborist companies. While some trees were lost to pests or disease, by far the single largest reason to cut healthy, exceptionally large (24” or greater in diameter) trees was for new housing construction projects.
Here’s the catch: almost all of these trees were on infill lots, which already had buildings on them — meaning the trees were on the perimeter of the property, not in the buildable area. Evaluations by certified architects on behalf of Tree Action Seattle show that in almost all instances, builders could have kept these large trees and developed the maximum amount of housing that zoning code allows.
Seattle’s developer lobby, Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties (MBAKS) — the same group who influenced, lobbied for and helped pass Seattle’s tree ordinance against the advice of scientists, advocates and the Urban Forestry Commission — has tried to fight us on that point. In 2021, it claimed that trees on properties reduce its ability to build housing and therefore drive down profits. Seattle’s hearing examiner took no time to slash down that argument. After reviewing nearly 100 pages of notes and three days of testimony, the hearing examiner determined that MBAKS’ argument was unequivocally false.
With the clear ability to keep trees, and no diminished profits from their retention, one may ask why Seattle is rapidly losing its urban forest. The answer lies in the city of Seattle’s real stakeholders: the construction industry and its profit-driven agenda.
1. Trees on private property are managed by the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI), which makes money through permit fees. The fee-based structure gives the department perverse incentive to rubberstamp the removal of trees when construction companies request it, as proven in our two-year investigation into the department. This isn’t the first time SDCI has been accused of unscrupulous behavior. A recent audit of SDCI conducted by the city revealed fraud and nepotism. Construction companies publicly brag about the revolving door between SDCI staff and their employees.
2. Seattle’s tree code was written by construction interests and contains myriad loopholes that give construction companies the last say in tree management on properties they develop. The Seattle Times calls the ordinance the “legislative equivalent of a chainsaw.” A former city council member calls it a “profits protection bill.” MBAKS, the lobby group, had 108 meetings with city officials in the six months leading up to when the tree ordinance took effect. Seattle’s expert-led Urban Forestry Commission got two.
Olsen’s on the right track defending tree equity in frontline communities, but she doesn’t understand the solution. Studies show that humans are only able to reap the benefits of trees — shading, air filtering and more — when there is a 30% tree canopy in their community. Achieving 30% tree canopy is the goal of cities across the globe, including Seattle, where tree canopy in frontline neighborhoods is often less than 12%. An imbalance of tree canopy across Seattle neighborhoods means wealthier neighborhoods are reaping the benefits of Seattle’s current urban forest while poorer communities suffer with higher rates of asthma, cancer and heat-related illnesses.
Efforts to plant street trees will never get us to 30%. Trees on Seattle’s private property make up over half of the city’s forest. If we relied solely on Seattle’s public property to hold trees — filling up our baseball fields, right-of-ways and more — we’d reach a meager 18% tree canopy. Without augmenting our public urban forest with private trees, we will undoubtedly miss the 30% mark.
We simply can’t achieve our urban forest goals without retaining trees on private property.
Let’s mobilize our community to prioritize affordable housing, public health and climate resiliency. And let’s stop accusing tree advocates of pushing their agenda at the expense of affordable housing. Olsen, we’re both on the right side of history.
Julia Shettler is an electrical engineer and works with Tree Action Seattle, a grassroots organization that advocates for Seattle's trees.
Before you go! Real Change exists to provide opportunity and a voice to people experiencing poverty while taking action for economic, racial and social justice.
Our vendors sell our weekly newspaper all over Seattle and the surrounding area, and they rely on the support of our readers to make an income.
Enjoyed the article? Find your local street paper vendor to buy it in print or Venmo a vendor to support their work!
Read more of the July 31–Aug. 6, 2024 issue.