Delay for study, debate doesn’t mean gut proposal
By Roy Ockert Jr.
Some unfair criticism has been leveled at the Jonesboro city administration and City Council since a proposed landscaping, screening and tree preservation ordinance was tabled for 60 days. One ill-informed citizen even accused the council’s Sept. 18 meeting of being “well-rehearsed” because of that action and one other she opposed.
I know a bit about the landscape ordinance issue because I was interim chief operations officer for the city when discussions began about that ordinance last spring, and I had some input. I was transitioning back to my previous (and current) role as a consultant to Mayor Harold Perrin when ORD 18-051 reached the council for its third and final reading.
The previous week I was involved in a conference call involving Josh Brown, the first developer to raise objections to the proposed ordinance, along with the mayor and Planning Director Derrel Smith, who had prepared the ordinance. We heard Mr. Brown’s arguments, which included some a bad experience with enforcement of a landscape ordinance in Northwest Arkansas.
I pointed out that the proposal had already gone through two readings without objection, both times as part of the regular council agenda; further that on Aug. 20 The Sun had a front-page article prior to the first reading, in which its major provisions were summarized.
Frankly, I was surprised no one had raised objections. Indeed, since last April Mr. Smith had distributed various drafts of the ordinance to administrators, aldermen and interested parties before it was introduced. He accepted and incorporated some input, but there were no major objections.
Previously, I had asked for a provision to encourage the preservation of existing trees, and the proposal now does that. I still have doubts about the need to include an 8-page list of recommended plants.
After hearing Mr. Brown’s complaint, I was also concerned that it’s strong enough to prohibit the kind of clear-cutting we saw on the Warmack mall property, which is still an eyesore on Highway 49 South, a prominent entryway to the city, and the Greensborough Village-Arkansas State University properties on Johnson Avenue.
The mayor was still in favor of the landscape ordinance, but he concluded that Mr. Brown’s complaints, while late, should be considered. When the proposal came up in the council meeting, it was clear than several members of the council were not ready to vote for it. In fact, it might have failed the third reading; certainly it wouldn’t have had a strong endorsement.
If the Sept. 18 council meeting was rehearsed, it certainly got off script. There was a vigorous debate about whether the proposal should be passed immediately, tabled for 30 days, 60 days or 90 days. Alderman David McClain, who had asked Mr. Smith to draft the ordinance. made a passioned plea for its passage. A proponent of the ordinance was heard, and so was Mr. Brown.
The will of the council, though, was to allow time for further study.
A 60-day delay will allow discussions, research and review of a complicated proposal. That doesn’t mean we won’t have a strong landscaping ordinance. Further study of a new sidewalks ordinance early this year didn’t result in the council giving in to developers; to the contrary, a stronger ordinance was passed and is now in effect.
Meanwhile, any developers who try to take advantage of the situation by clearcutting property risk public ridicule and contempt. But they would have had 30 days anyway, even if the ordinance had been passed on Sept. 18. There is no emergency.
The mayor appointed an advisory committee comprised of citizens and developers, including a landscape architect who had previous input into an early draft. No aldermen were named because they will be making the decision, not the committee.
The suggestion by a Sun columnist that this is an ad hoc panel of “tree overlords” and that the “real purpose of the committee is to gut the ordinance so developers have a free rein to slap up what they want” is just flat wrong.
Listening to both sides of an argument and gathering all the facts possible is critical to making an informed decision. Mr. Brown waited till late in the process to address his concerns, but giving him a chance to be heard doesn’t mean the council or anyone else is caving to developers.
The committee can make all the recommendations it wants, even come up with an entirely new ordinance, but it has no authority to introduce so much as a minor amendment.
Most of the issues Mr. Brown and his hired professionals raised are easily dispatched. The landscaping and screening provisions do not apply to residential property, and the section on tree preservation would prevent clearcutting of any property of one acre or larger without a site development plan under a city permit.
Some of his attorney’s comments were insulting:
“Wealthy cities and regions with strong cultural, historical and quality of life amenities can afford these types of initiatives because people and businesses are more willing to absorb the financial and intangible costs in exchange for being in such a community. Jonesboro is not one of these communities.”
There is another reason why Jonesboro needs “this type of initiative.” It can mitigate the type of stormwater drainage problems many residents face every time we have a 2-inch rainfall. During my six months as chief of operations the No. 1 complaint I handled, by far, came from residents who felt that a commercial development or new subdivision had caused flooding problems for them.
A good landscape ordinance alone won’t solve that problem, but it would help.
Anyone who thinks developers are favored over citizens should keep in mind that in August the council unanimously passed a resolution authorizing the mayor to advertise for a consultant to study the possibility of impact fees, which could also help pay for the infrastructure needed because of development. Count on developers to oppose that, too, but maybe they won’t wait so long.
Roy Ockert, a retired editor of The Sun, can be reached at royo@suddenlink.net.