Apparently Aberdeen is too green for mayoral candidate Travis Schaunaman and his conservative campaign partner and city council candidate Joshua Rife. Or, given that they are operating from a conservative paradigm informed by national media and aren’t as well-versed in the practical details of running a local government, they had to find some example to affirm their generic “less regulation!” slogan and decided to target Aberdeen’s landscaping requirements for businesses as city “overreach”:
Both Rife and Schaunaman said they’ve heard from people who feel the ordinance is restrictive. Rife said he’s heard from people who have decided not to expand, because they didn’t want to comply with the landscaping ordinance.
Rife suggested it might be time to roll back some of the requirements.
Schaunaman said the tree-planting requirements pose a huge expense — especially for businesses that have to replace trees that don’t survive the winter or the summer.
“I understand the idea,” Schaunaman said. “Perhaps the idea is to plant the trees elsewhere other than a parking lot where they don’t thrive anyway” [Elisa Sand, “Mayor Challengers Pushes for Less [sic] Regulations {paywall},” Aberdeen American News, 2019.05.08].
Fewer trees, more bare parking lots—yeah, that’s a progressive urban vision! Remind folks of that position in July when they’re looking for a shady spot to park.
Mayor Mike Levsen and Councilwoman Jennifer Slaight-Hansen, the incumbents on the ballot don’t sound like tree-hugging radicals; they sound like they’ve already compromised Aberdeen’s tree rules into a form that doesn’t rouse many complaints:
But, Levsen said, the city’s landscaping ordinance was already rolled back when it was put in place about 15 years ago. As it was proposed then, he said, it was much more restrictive. And those landscaping requirements were ultimately approved in a citywide vote. Nevertheless, he said, if people want a change, they can come to the City Council and ask for it.
“It’s really not that difficult and the council really will respond to what the preponderance of the audience wants,” Levsen said.
Slaight-Hansen said she remembers having a conversation with a businessman who said the city’s regulations are less restrictive than other places, but hasn’t had conversations with people who feel the ordinance is an issue [Sand, 2019.05.08].
If anything, our incumbents could stand to advocate harder for trees. We have long understood that trees are ecologically and aesthetically vital to cities. Trees reduce air pollution and erosion, conserve water and energy, reduce noise pollution, support biodiversity, increase property values, and make people feel better.
And trees don’t appear to be standing in the way of Aberdeen’s economic development:
Aberdeen has been recognized as one of the best small cities in the country to start a small business.
WalletHub.com ranked Aberdeen 8th on its yearly Top 20 Small Cities to Start a Business.
To determine the most business-friendly small markets, WalletHub compared more than 1,200 cities with fewer than 100,000 residents across 18 key metrics. The data set ranges from small business growth rates and accessibility of financing to investor access and labor costs [“Hub City Named Among Best Small Cities to Do Business,” KSFY, 2019.04.22].
Trees are good for customers and for the community. Requiring that developers plant a certain number of trees to preserve greenery and community health is a low and reasonable price to pay for the privilege of turning a lot of ground into hot, dull pavement to accommodate automobile addicts. Folks like Schaunaman who call commercial tree-planting requirements government “overreach” have been spending too much time listening to generic and selfish conservative radio and not enough time looking at the small, practical things that make living in community healthier for everyone.
Pretty sure I’m not the only one who races for the shady spot in the parking lot on a hot summer day.
Sure, planting trees requires an investment up front, but it’s one that will make life that little bit better for decades to come — for the owner, as well as the customers. Fighting the rule seems short-sighted to me.
And there are good reasons for regulations for digital billboards (which was also mentioned in the story) — they can be distracting for drivers, and they can create light pollution, depending on where they are placed. (No one wants a billboard flickering outside their bedroom window.) If the guy who wants to put one up is community-minded at all, a little conversation and common sense could probably find an agreeable solution.
I’d been wondering what “excessive regulation” in Aberdeen was. So far, this is pretty weak tea.
Maybe they really do feel strongly about these rules, but it’s more likely this is a call to the tribe: “Hey! I’m a Republican! I’m on your team, and so you should vote for me!” You can’t say that out loud in a nonpartisan election, so you have to find some other breadcrumbs to leave.
Sounds like insanity is not limited to the south side of SD.
Have a care and shed a tear for the trees.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hleg0nrh4x8
Beautiful song from Canadian singer/musician Loreena Mckennitt used in the Highlander movie(s).
Good read of the situation, Heidi! Alas, for some campaigners, talking real policy isn’t nearly as fun as singing along to the karaoke that the national media feed a certain group of followers. Throwing breadcrumbs to rally partisans seems doubly bothersome and irresponsible, especially at the local level, since it encourages people to settle for easy slogans instead of really analyzing the practical issues affecting their community.
If someone really chose not to expand her business because it would have cost too much to plant a few trees in the new parking lot, I’d like that person to step forward and tell her story. How much would the trees have cost compared to the pavement and the rest of the expansion project? Where would this construction have taken place? What did the business owner decide to do instead? At the local level, we should be able to talk in specifics, not just generalities that pretend to reinforce general slogans.
I’m really intrigued by the property tax angle: how much more curb appeal will a commercial property have if it has well-established trees? How much more money will the owner be able to seel the property for if she invests in good trees at the beginning?
Congrats Aberdeen aka The Chosen City. My Little Town ranked 59th. I think our problem is we’re over run with seniors demanding things like more trees, more parks, very low priced bus service that will pick you up at home, trains that can’t blow their whistle or come through town except between 4:00 am and 5:30am., block parties with live music paid for by the town, restrictions on tearing down houses older that a hundred years, property tax rebates for anyone over 70 etc. We also as a group aren’t fond of “developers” and when we do deal with them they “pay to play” in our Little Town. Aberdeen can set an example by heavily regulating development. It actually attracts business. Who wants to move a business to a town with no trees?
Such BS, previous government screwed up parking lots with trees they wanted planted in stupid areas. Trees are ok but shouldn’t hamper parking area. Think before you write this stupid crap
Chuck, did you read any of the resources to which I linked? I’ve seen no evidence of any business harmed by trees. The value of parking is grossly exaggerated.
Remember when the U.S. Calvary rode into Minnesota, stole all the land and forcibly removed the lumberjacks to reservations in NE South Dakota? Chuck does. Not pretty. His ancestors, in their red plaid shirts were uprooted without even one axe between them. The trauma lives …
What can we do to ease your pain, buddy??
And read on, Chuck, for more on how trees are good for cities and the associated waterways:
https://dakotafreepress.com/2019/05/16/trees-filter-pollution-reduce-algae-blooms/
Now, Chuck, can you give me an example of the “stupid areas” in which trees have been planted? And can you show us that government actually forced the planting of trees in bad locations? Or did landowners design their lots poorly and put trees in less than optimal spots?
Chuck kind of makes my headline point: people latch onto slogans and labels to make themselves feel like they are real statesmen, but then they forgot to look at and talk about actual situations from which we can learn and formulate better-informed policy.
Chuck’s tone suggests he isn’t thinking through the problem; he’s just looking for an excuse to shout “BS” and “stupid crap,” which also fail to advance the discussion.