By Erica C. Barnett
This post has been updated to include more information about SDOT’s pothole budget.
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.”
PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.
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 her 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. Of that total, according to SDOT, about $4.2 million pays for pothole repair. Repairing each pothole costs a few hundred dollars.
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.
Here is an idea. Change the law so that you can’t get rid of a big tree unless you make a substantial increase in the number of units that exist there. So if you want to get rid of trees to put up a bigger house you are out of luck. But get rid of some trees to build an apartment building: go ahead. Since most development in the city is on land zoned single-family, you would retain most of the trees. At the same time you would allow more dense development which ultimately means more trees overall.
That’s an elegant idea, because there are two big ways to reduce CO2: (a) more trees or (b) greater density (which means less CO2 per residence and fewer vehicle miles traveled). So coming or going that means a win for CO2 reduction. (Of course Barcelona is running the table compared to us – 4X as dense, 1/2 the CO2 emissions per capita, and the same tree canopy target we have (30% by 2037)). Our un-serious council members should get serious about doing nearly as well!
In response to the tirelessly repeated claim that Seattle’s “anti density” zealots are stopping housing production:
In 2023, Seattle added 12,853 new homes, setting a new record for housing production since at least 2005, and a 21% increase compared to 2022.
According to the Seattle Times in 2024, Seattle saw a record number of housing units completed, with builders opening 12,730 units by October.
What is your housing goal, and when will you be satisfied? We were until very recently in the top 5 US cities for growth. Now, as Seattle’s greater density has created a less livable and even more expensive city than before, that growth is elsewhere: in Texas, Carolina and other points south. Will you be satisfied when we have become Houston? New York? Tokyo— where we can live stacked in tubes? I begin to think no matter how many homes are built each year the neo-liberal rhetoric of deregulation will never change. It is clothed in “social justice and equity” but it results only in more economic inequity and environmental degradation. It doesn’t have to be like this, you know? A middle path is completely doable: trees, housing parks, environmental survival, and a city in touch with nature and not just concrete.
Here’s a radical idea: let property owners manage the trees for the property they own. Seattle is still vastly a single family home city with some nice infill density near transit (esp I-5). All this busy body-ing of what people can and can’t do with their own property or who lives where is silly. Cities change; neighbors need to mind their own business.
ps – Seattle is shockingly less housing burdened than many red cities thanks to our higher min wage. The housing rental sticker shock is real, but incomes in Seattle are higher than most of the country.
Public cola takes Moore’s comments out of context and does not include everything she said.
Moore is not anti tree in the public right of way. Nor is she anti density.
She does, however, want changes to the tree protection ordinance to prevent the removal of existing trees for redevelopment. Housing advocates and tree advocates would be better off working together to require that existing trees be designed around when a parcel is redeveloped. I was present at the meeting.
The stupidity and greed of developers is showcased by the current practice of totally clearing an existing lot. Seattle needs both greatly increased housing density and a robust tree canopy to face an uncertain climate and economic future. Both are easily possible from a construction perspective.
My company worked around existing trees many times. It was neither difficult or expensive.
People who proclaim that it just can’t be done are being stupid, inept or just lying.
Take your pick.
I know neoliberals hate any sort of environmental regulation, but privately owned trees are obviously critical so we don’t bake to death in the rapidly escalating climate crisis. Trees on public properties are critical too and need to be maintained. But clear cutting everything but the parks will do nothing to stop us from creating a heat island. This is very basic science I’m afraid.
I am lucky enough to live about a mile from a large, tree-filled park. However much benefit I enjoy when walking in that park, the trees there do little to affect the area around my home. Most of the health and environmental benefits of trees do not extend for a mile, more like 100 yards. Without those benefits in my yard and neighborhood, my neighbors and I would be more at risk for asthma and other respiratory conditions, heart disease, depression, anxiety, and a host of other conditions. When the June 2021 heat dome event happened, my home, which, like most Seattle homes, lacks air conditioning, would have been much warmer. At the time I was recovering from surgery and could not leave my home to seek coolness and shade without help. The University of Washington estimated that over 400 people died in Washington State of direct and indirect heat-related causes in the week of that event. Under different circumstances, one of those people could have been me. We will have more and more such events as the climate heats up.
Street trees cannot make up the difference. Urban trees experience high stress for a number of reasons; street trees experience the most. Some areas of Seattle completely lack planting strips; others have strips too narrow for any trees. No planting strips are large enough to grow the largest, most beneficial trees, particularly native conifers. We simply do not have enough public land close to or in residential areas to provide the essential health and environmental benefits which trees close to housing provide.
Yes, we need housing. We need that housing to be liveable. We need neighborhoods that remain healthy as more people live in them. Otherwise we inevitably exacerbate large existing health disparities by race and income.
“No planting strips are large enough to grow the largest, most beneficial trees, particularly native conifers.”
Today there are about 6,000 significant trees in Seattle, 10,000 Neighborhood Residential blocks, and 500,000 street parking spaces. SDOT says an 80′ conifer needs a 12′ parking strip. If we bumped out parking strips and greened 10,000 parking spaces – just 2% of the total – every residential block could get a great big tree for the next 200+ years.
There are lots of blocks where you wouldn’t even need to remove parking spots to plant big trees!
It’s pretty common to have driveways more than 12′ apart but still too close together to parallel park between them. Even one of those short Smart cars is 9′ long, needing a 19′ gap between driveways to be a legal parking space, while a more typical 15′ sedan requires a 25′ gap. Why not bump out the curb to make room for a giant tree in each and every one of these areas?
It’s also illegal to park within 30′ of a stop sign or 20′ of the crosswalk on other corners. These could and should be made into tree planting zones.
I agree about the benefits of trees being local.
Please join me in asking Councilmember Moore to upzone all lots adjacent to parks and schools. These lots can accommodate much more density and benefit from the trees in the parks. It’s silly to restrict them to
I think this is a compromise we can all agree is good for housing, trees and people.
Bingo! Nailed the obvious logical implications of what she’s saying. (Unless of course you do a good old Seattle Classism that is.)
Have you bothered to calculate how much extra housing that you would get from upzoning adjacent to parks?
And Cathy Moore did not say what the headline of this article says. She said “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.” She said sometimes.
Smart cities rely on owner-maintained private trees as a cost-effective way to protect public health and boost climate resilience. This article suggests private property trees should be eliminated, and trees should be confined to public land in parks and along streets. That won’t work because there is not enough public land in Seattle to meet its 30% canopy goal without private trees. Peer-reviewed studies overwhelmingly cite the need for 30% tree canopy to avoid urban heat islands and other negative health impacts.
It also doesn’t work because people benefit most from trees right where they live—shading their home/apartment/townhouse/condo—and giving them access to nature in their immediate environment.
Most of Seattle’s large trees grow on the edge of lots. They don’t stand in the way of adding the housing we need. Presenting housing and trees as an Either-Or is a false choice. Other cities like Portland, Vancouver BC, Boston and Washington DC protect private property trees when new homes are built. Seattle is already #5 in the nation for urban heat islands with their dystopian impacts like ozone and heat stroke. Removing the trees that protect us now is poor policy and runs counter to science.
Hey Sandy, why don’t you have any evergreen trees on your property? Why do you rely on street trees for canopy coverage on your property? Why do you live in a single-family home?
My privately owned trees cost time and money to keep up (and to remove them if they die). When the city reimburses for such expenses, then it can comment on my ownership of them, otherwise it should stick to its own ownership of countless square miles of under-planted public spaces and unused right-of-ways.
Except for Crown Hill Glen, none of the parks are close to being forest-like, comfortable places to go to enjoy the sites and sounds of nature, and get out of the hot sun. Oh, but Crown Hill Glen was mostly managed by its neighbor volunteers, so Kathy please find and spend more resources on these precious places we all own, and stay out of our yards!
Check out Dead Horse Canyon in south Seattle – it’s another big swath of nature in the city!
Crown Hill Glen is one of many forest-like parks in North Seattle alone. They’re a continuum as regards accessibility, and I’m not sure any of the others are exactly as accessible as Crown Hill Glen, “forest-like, comfortable” for you, but Beaver Pond Natural Area, Kingfisher Natural Area, Victory Creek Park, Llandover Woods, and one of the North Beach parks, for that matter much of Carkeek Park and the Ravenna Creek ravine, all come to my mind as accessible but pretty forest-like. Other forested parks in North Seattle are substantially less accessible than Crown Hill Glen, such as most of the rest of the Natural Areas, the other North Beach park, and the easements like Waldo Woods and Maple Springs Natural Area.
It’s apparent Saka and Moore never read The Lorax.
Or The Sneetches
Erica, this article ignores Washington-state funded studies done that demonstrate how a typical Seattle lot of 5000 sq ft and over can achieve both space for trees and amenity space and four to six townhouses. We need more vertical residential towers like Vancouver BC and its surrounding five suburbs… that also include a variety of housing options. Even European and San Fran style rowhouses without side-yards reserve shared and semi-private courts that allow a rich fabric of dense homes with green space. Tree Action Seattle should be applauded, not scorned, for recognizing we can double our city’s population over the next several decades without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Largely agree with this. And tree action Seattle needs to show that they’re sincere about this by pushing for taller stacked flats and more flexibility in setbacks to save trees.
Research on the current plan shows that it won’t result in many stacked flats and the ones that will be built will be expensive. More units and height would make them more economical.
Check out Tree Action Seattle’s website. They clearly advocate for stacked flats
Much like Seattle, New York City was once covered by an old growth forest. Then they were farmland. Now they are cities, both with a great lack of affordable housing. Like the fact that your house is worth four times what it was 25 years ago? Time to pay up.
These crazy arguments make my head hurt. Can Cathy Moore get any more ridiculous? Why aren’t other outlets calling her out on her nonsense?