The agenda for tonight's Common Council Legal Committee meeting is now available here. As expected, the proposed tree ordinance is on the agenda.
At last night's meeting of the Conservation Advisory Council, where the proposed tree ordinance originated, the question was asked, regarding the tree ordinance, if it was preferable to "go for everything and compromise, or start small and build up on it." The proposed tree ordinance is evidence of the latter. It is a mere page and a half long; it doesn't create a Tree Board, but rather assigns responsibility for determining if a tree should be removed to the Department of Public Works; and it gives DPW the power to issue a stop-work order if a tree is being removed without authorization. Mostly, the proposed tree ordinance imposes penalties: $300 if a tree is removed and not replaced with a similar tree, and an additional $500 if the tree was removed without securing a permit from DPW. The penalties would be paid into a Street Tree Fund, "which shall be used exclusively for the planting, maintenance, and care of street trees."
COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK
Carole,
ReplyDeleteI'd just like to point out the context you're leaving out. I'm speaking as a CAC member here, not for the body as a whole.
The CAC has very little power itself, other than to recommend things. We're simply an advisory body without any legislative power.
That rests with the Legal Committee, and the wider Common Council.
The CAC is already on record proposing a much more ambitious tree regulation. That was our original advice, and a local law was written that would have regulated all trees within the City of Hudson. The CAC passed a motion to recommend that local law to the Council. That proposed local law was not adopted by the Council when it came up for a vote.
The CAC for the record, has not voted as a body to officially recommend the draft local law that the Legal Committee is currently considering. We have provided it at the legal committee's request, and we expect they will edit it as part of their own process.
It was shared with the legal committee as a minimalist starting point in the hope that the Council might pass some protection for street trees within the public way given the failure of the previous attempt at passing a more ambitious local law. This is especially important given the City has been spending tax dollars on planting Street Trees that under current law may be removed by the adjacent property owner without any consequence or process. For the record, the originally proposed much more ambitious Tree Ordinance is the only proposal that has been endorsed by an official vote of the CAC.
In my personal view , the most critical issue is passing, if nothing else, some protection for trees in the public way, and I hope that the Legal Committee is finally able to take up that critical issue. It's been sitting with them for many months. There are many changes that the Legal Committee might make to this draft, based on input from the public and their own preferences.
The council knows much better than the CAC does what sort of law their body might eventually vote to support.
I hope that clarifies the situation and clarifies what position the CAC has taken as an official body, vs. ideas we've shared with the Legal Committee informally.
I'll be at the Legal Committee meeting to discuss this agenda item with the Council and if you have opinions about the ideal way to regulate trees in Hudson I'd encourage you to come along as well.
The only way to make the project of living together as neighbors work as well as it should is if we take the time to show up in person and help craft policies like this one.
best,
Nathan Woodhull
Nathan is right to say that the CAC has very little power. But the problem is, in my very limited experience with the CAC, is that such an attitude results in a do-nothing/afraid-of- your-own shadow attitude which seeps into proposals like the Street Tree law under discussion (as Nathan points out, the CAC never even voted on it -- and the one that they did propose was already voted down). As it stands, the proposed law essentially allows anybody to cut down any tree for a mere $300. My suggestion to Nathan and his comrades on the CAC is to be more receptive to public suggestions and more bold in proposing good ideas to the Council . --peter meyer
ReplyDeleteI think the timing of that ordinance was unfortunate. It came about just when the topic of financially burdensome home ownership in Hudson gained wider awareness. As I recall, the sidewalk fee was announced around the same time.
DeleteThe revised version is more palatable as it now only pertains to street trees. For someone like me, who isn't doing particularly well in direct sunlight, these trees are more valuable than the trees in someone's backyard. Those are valuable, too, but should maybe be handled in a different manner.
The crux of the matter is that Hudson, despite its ballooning budget, has no money for planting trees on public streets. What the city needs is something like NYC's Million Trees program (and a way to pay for it).
As an advisory council that just "recommends things" I find it really odd that the CAC is so active in getting street trees in the concrete. I'm all for more trees, but getting it done shouldn't be up to the CAC. Rich Volo's priority should not to be to get as many trees in the ground, which it seems to be. Leave that to someone else. The priority for the past several years should have been ratifying a quality tree ordinance, but it has not been. That wonderful tree that was recently cut down in the 300 block of Warren was probably worth 20 or more sidewalk trees, 20 or more sidewalk trees that will likely never grow to that size and many which will perish. A tree ordinance might have saved that tree, kept it around for another 20 years. Have you seen how healthy the stump is? That tree never should have come down! Now what? Replace it with a ginko thanks to the CAC?
ReplyDeleteWhat would you have the CAC rather do? They proposed a tree ordinance that for reasons I stated elsewhere here was unlikely to pass.
DeleteAnd I disagree about Rich's and the CAC's role. They've taken a very proactive approach that goes far beyond their negligible budget. It's comprised of nine people that are volunteering their spare time to do very tedious, yet beneficial, things. Are you aware that one member of Hudson's CAC even is a resident of Greenport?
I agree with Max, let’s uplift the CAC. They are like the only subcommittee with real citizen volunteers rather than politicos and probably the only meetings in city hall with laughter and joy. They’ve got a hard nut to crack trying to increase Hudson’s minuscule tree canopy, while respecting property rights. It’s a worthy endeavor.
DeleteThe A stands ADVISORY, not ACTIVITY! They spend too much time talking about getting trees in the sidewalks and actively getting it done.
Delete