... modest development fee increases

Sam-Rand speak for "grab your ankles."

Doesn't "development of the tree manual and other informational materials" sound like the kind of thing that would actually kill trees?

Sam says he's accomplished more in two years than ever before.

SEZ in the online doc that there will be guide lines published in mid Dec...there don't seem to be any...yet...
Arne't they running a little late?

Rogeer,Doesn't "development of the tree manual and other informational materials" sound like the kind of thing that would actually kill trees?

Our "sustainable" city plans have actually allowed lots of huge trees to be killed to make room for "development."
This plan may be more about a "new canopy" of little street trees to replace all those huge trees,firs and cedars.

If the rich and developers hadn't cut down all the trees in the west hills for expensive homes and bunkers, we'd have more than enough trees along with a side benefit no leaf pickup.

Can someone do a detailed analysis of:

1. The average number of trees per developed acre in Portland,

2. The average number of trees per developed acre in Downtown Portland (including the Pearl District and South Waterfront),

3. The average number of trees per developed acre outside of Portland?

My neighborhood in that God awful suburb of Tigard has more trees than the Pearl and SoWhat combined (and the city was nice enough to plant four new trees in my front yard for free!)

* Generating more than 100 acres of future tree canopy per year through improved tree preservation and planting requirements.

We are obviously a concrete jungle.

Don't these people have some paint they can watch dry?

When cutting down trees is outlawed, only outlaws will cut down trees . . . sigh, gonna have to take out the dying tree before Randy charges me a bundle to do so, or makes me replace it even though the site is too small for a large tree, or will block solar access to the panels I'll be putting on my south-facing roof. And I may soon be working for these nutjobs.

Another Columbus day storm will show who's boss.

This is all Sambo's way of getting everyone in the city to pony up for leaf removal. With 25% of the charge going to overhead, Sam could hire 4 or 5 more Twitterers.

They will force you to plant more trees.

Then they will prevent you from cutting any down.

Lastly, they will begin the escalating charges for leaf removal and pruning.

New revenue sources for decades to come!

I like trees. I'm not opposed to the City creating a plan for how they're going to 1) protect existing trees; and 2) invest money in planting more.

And isn't it at least a little disingenuous for people to criticize the city for allowing development that requires removal of trees? Unless, of course, those critics are sure no trees were cut down to accommodate the house or apartment where they live.

If you don't like this particular plan (rather, this broad outline of a plan), what's the alternative? What's your suggestion?

Perhaps everyone who cares about "tree regulations" should show up at the public meeting in January. Might not be as cathartic as venting in blog comments, but there's also no way it would be less productive.

"This is all Sambo's way of getting everyone in the city to pony up for leaf removal."

No, this is all back-n-fill politics. We create some "need" that govt has to do for the public good. Then we have to hire more people to enforce that need.

Erik H: My neighborhood in that God awful suburb of Tigard has more trees than the Pearl and SoWhat combined (and the city was nice enough to plant four new trees in my front yard for free!)

You might be interested to know that Tigard is undertaking a comprehensive revision of its tree regulations as well: http://www.tigard-or.gov/community/trees/code_revision.asp

My suggestion is to re-evaluate the UGB "density" plan, Portland is turning into a sacrifice zone for it and why should where we live lose quality of life for a plan that has such negatives? (or isn't a conversation other than choosing two negatives, density or sprawl allowed in our community?)

I suspect that many homes people live in now may have had some selective cutting to accommodate a home or apt. That is different than groves being chopped for
the "extensive density infill" with our current plan.

We also need to stop promoting this city as the "cat's meow" as green and sustainable when what is happening (if you really care to look) is not so.

Joey: My suggestion would be to allow me to do whatever I want to with a tree on my property without having to ask permission from the government. Unrealistic, I know, but it's fun to dream of the good old days when government regulation like this would have been ridiculed.

"And I may soon be working for these nutjobs."
Good, please start by fitting size and species to the tree locations. Look out for possible push back from the "nutjobs" though. (Methinks the assumption of imminent employment may be a bit premature?)

Anybody who's been around Portland long enough to be part of its history knows that the trees are more plentiful and much larger than ever before. Most of this land was logged, farmed, or used for dairy and orchards. There are plenty of archival photographs to show how our "canopy" has vastly grown. Or, just visit Council Crest where there was once a view.

This kind of regulation could be severely detrimental. It could prevent people from planting larger trees for future liability considerations, and it will allow trees to overgrow their natural size within a populated area, leading to structural damage and possible injuries and death when nature takes its course.

This is "back-n-fill politics" as stated earlier by Steve.

The unobstructed southwestern view from my part of town once covered from Mount Sylvania to the south, all the way to Hillsboro. 5 decades later there is very little view remaining due to the number and size of the trees. No problem. Trees are beautiful. But there doesn't seem to be a need to legislate that which is occurring naturally.

Meanwhile, when it comes to things that actually contribute money to the city coffers, Dallas's mayor is trying to steal away Portland's employers:

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/anna_griffin/index.ssf/2010/12/portland_needs_an_evil_genius.html

Now, I'd never call Tom Leppert an "evil genius". The fastest way to castrate George W. Bush is to kick Leppert in the chin, and the only bright side to his leading my home town is that the mayoral position in Dallas is essentially powerless. (We've had some real maroons in the space, with some being almost as incompetent and arrogant as Sam Adams. Remind me to tell you about Annette Strauss and "Uncle" Ron Kirk one of these days. Thankfully, since most municipal power in Dallas resides with the City Council and the City Commissioners, they can't cause as much damage as they'd like.) However, it says a hell of a lot that Leppert is doing something besides crawling along ceilings and catching flies with his tongue. Compare that to what Mayor Creepy's been doing lately to bring in non-developer business.

quick everyone rush out and cut down every tree on your land before these experts start up the many fees....

PDXlifer has it right. Looking through even my own 50s and 60's photos of Portland, then back in history through OHS photos, you'll find many more trees than today throughout the city. I like comparing the vistas along SW Terwilliger and SW Barbur to what is now totally obscured by trees...and SoWhat.

A past 10ft-20ft side and rear setback gives much more room for trees than the now 3ft to 5th yards. Then condos and row-houses cuts down the ability of having a tree.

Outraging residents with wasteful and dumb ideas seems to be the norm around here anymore.

It's like a city that's been taken hostage by kidnappers that keep demanding an ever-increasing ransom from the residents. As long as they think they're holding onto something of value, they'll just keep doing what they're doing.