Privately Owned Trees Are Better Than Trees in Parks and Public Spaces, Councilmembers Argue

Moore and Saka offer some novel arguments for requiring property owners to preserve large trees.

Photo by Josh Feit

By Erica C. Barnett

Several recently elected members of the City Council raised a novel objection to pro-housing advocates who argued the city should allow more density and plant more public trees yesterday: Trees in the private yards of single-family houses, they argued, are better for people than those in parks and public rights-of-way.

The arguments against public trees took place during a discussion about the impact proposed changes to the city's comprehensive plan would have on tree canopy. Two years ago, the city updated its tree code to place new restrictions on some tree removals; since then, groups like Tree Action Seattle have argued that the tree code will lead to the "clearcutting" of Seattle.

Whatever individual tree advocates' motivations, the impact of forcing Seattle property owners to retain trees in their private lawns is to prevent density in Seattle's traditional single-family neighborhoods, worsening Seattle's housing shortage as the population grows. (For people motivated by the desire to keep renters out of "their" neighborhoods, trees have largely replaced the blunter objections of the past, such as complaints that renters ruin people's property values.) Advocates want to revamp the two-year-old tree code to make it difficult or impossible to remove large private trees for development or any other purpose, and Moore is their main champion on the council.

Addressing several staff for the city departments that deal with planning, land use, and trees, Moore kicked things off by saying that planting trees in street rights-of-way, such as planting strips and medians, is "problematic" and potentially "not sustainable" because sometimes the city ends up removing those trees anyway; for example, Moore said, a SDOT was "wanting to cut down all those trees" on a landscaped median on Beacon Avenue.

After staffers responded that most of those trees were actually going to stay in place—the city puts signs on trees to indicate that they could be removed, not that they will—Moore made her case that trees in people's private yards are actually better than trees in parks and other public spaces.

"While you say everybody is 10 minutes' walking distance from a park, not everybody is mobile," Moore said, addressing city staffers who had been describing the city's tree planting and maintenance program. "And also, I don't think that you can necessarily get the benefit of a tree by it being in a park. I mean, sometimes the benefit of the tree is that you're standing outside your apartment building or your house when it's 90 degrees and you're getting some relief from the heat. You have the benefit of looking out a window and seeing a tree that you might not see in a park."

Moving beyond parks, Moore said that planting trees in public rights-of-way could also be "problematic," because the city might have to remove the trees later for unanticipated reasons. For example, she's "received a lot of emails about Beacon Avenue," where the city has to repair sidewalks damaged by the roots of large street trees, "[and] SDOT wanting to cut down all those trees," Moore said. "I appreciate the idea of wanting to put trees in the right-of-way, but that, too, comes with with issues."

The trees Moore was referring to were marked with evaluation notices earlier this year; as a staffer noted in response to Moore, most will be retained thanks to sidewalk redesigns that allow the trees to keep growing while keeping the sidewalk accessible to people with disabilities.

Moore also brought up a favorite straw-man argument, one I've never heard anyone actually make: People who want to allow private property owners to remove trees, she said, inaccurately believe that any new housing that gets built in its place has to be affordable. (In other words, she's saying that you probably believe any townhouse that goes up in your neighborhood is reserved for a low-income person).

"So this narrative that [if we remove trees for development], suddenly we're going to have affordable housing, is incorrect," Moore said. "I challenge the department, [the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections], to show me how many of these permits were for affordable housing, I submit to you that none of them were affordable housing." This is the point when I started yelling "Literally no one has ever said that!" at my laptop screen.

Moore wasn't the only council member to come up with reasons that forcing property owners to keep trees in their private yards was superior to planting and maintaining public trees.

Rob Saka, who set aside $2 million in last year's budget to remove a traffic barrier that prevented illegal left turns into his children's preschool, pointed out that if trees are allowed to grow tall in city rights-of-way, it makes it harder to remove them later for other "transportation purposes."

"I definitely recognize that the right of way is it is an appropriate place to to plant trees and build our tree canopy," Saka said, but "there are associated costs, nontrivial costs, associated with maintaining these tree canopies in our public right of ways." Every year, SDOT's budget for trees seems to "grow and grow. ... I love arborists out there [but we're] getting to a point, getting to a state where our ongoing annual maintenance costs for maintaining tree canopy alone, in shrubbery alone, eclipses our ability what we spend to repair basic potholes."

"Planting trees is expensive," Moore chimed in later, adding that the city should create a new fund to move existing trees, like a sequoia whose owner has become the target of protests, to other locations because the trees the city is planting now aren't comparable to the ones in people's existing yards. (City staff who compared new tree plantings to evergreens planted when Seattle was being developed were also being "disingenuous," Moore said, because the new trees won't live as long.)

SDOT's general-fund budget for tree planting and maintenance is $11 million this year, up from $6.9 million in 2024 and $7.5 million in 2021. The general fund budget also includes $19 million for pavement maintenance and repair, which includes potholes—roughly the same amount as last year, and up from $15 million in 2023. The voter-approved 2024 transportation levy has an additional $29 million for urban forestry and citywide tree planting, and $67 million for pavement spot improvements, including potholes.

Planting "trees in a specific location," Saka continued, has other inherent problems: "It limits our freedom to operate, and removes any flexibility, sense of flexibility or agility, that we need as a city. ... So when you plant a lot of trees in rights-of-way and fully leverage that space, again, it limits our flexibility to accommodate new travel, new modes of travel, new traffic patterns, and make the most beneficial use of our roads that works for all."

I have to admit, "street trees are a problem because you can't move them" was a new one for me. So it was almost comforting to hear Moore return to a very, very old argument against adding density in single-family areas.

Contrary to what urbanists claim, Moore said, "it is disingenuous, I think, to talk about, you know, 'if we don't build density, then we're going to sprawl.' We are constrained by the Growth Management Act. If we don't have density in Seattle, we're not going to sprawl out, because we're constrained by state law. So that's a red herring, frankly. ... People recognize when they've been sold a bill of goods."

In reality, the red herring here is that the Growth Management Act prevents sprawl. King County's growth management boundary—where, according to Moore, sprawl is prohibited— includes every sprawling bedroom community in the region, from Black Diamond and Maple Valley to North Bend and the Issaquah Highlands. (That sprawl exists, by the way, because developers cut down actual forests, as opposed to the "forest" of individual trees in people's private yards that's the subject of so much handwringing in Seattle.)

Moore's wrong about the reason it's happening, too. Seattle has created a housing shortage by adopting policies that prevent housing. That increases housing prices in Seattle and forces middle- and working-class people to move out into the sprawl that surrounds the city. The "bill of goods" is that Seattle's anti-housing policies—and, yes, proposals to prevent development by forcing property owners to retain trees are anti-housing—don't have consequences for the entire region.