Evanston could double the number of trees it plants each year for $115,000. But City Council voted Monday night to hire a tree cop for about that much money instead.
The new city inspector would police private property, seeking to prevent homeowners from cutting down healthy trees — despite city staff conceding they have no data about how often that happens and that they haven’t bothered to ask local arborists for information that might provide the answers.
Staff says the Village of Wilmette, which adopted a similar ordinance two years ago, has had no requests for tree removal permits since its ordinance was adopted.
Evanston’s Environment Board has been pushing for years for the city to assert control over trees on private property, and it’s co-chair, Wendy Pollock, urged council members Monday night to approve the ordinance.
Public Serves Coordinator Emily Okallau tells Evanston Now the city currently plants 300 to 400 trees for the $115,000 it spends annually on new trees for public property.
New staff to enforce the ordinance is expected to cost nearly $150,000 next year.
A 2021 study by the Chicago Region Tree Initiative showed that Evanston has 39% of its land area covered by the tree canopy, compared to an average of 28% for Cook County as a whole.
As for neighboring areas, Wilmette had 41% of its land covered with tree canopy, Skokie 25%, Lincolnwood and West Ridge 26% and Rogers Park 27%.
But the report showed significant variations by neighborhood in Evanston — with generally less tree cover in lower income areas.
By focusing only on preserving existing trees, the new ordinance does not address those wealth-based disparities.
The tree initiative report says the highest share of “plantable space” in Evanston — areas that could have tree cover but don’t — occurs in utility, park and institutional land.
Okallau says the city “works to expand the tree canopy as much as possible” but that a variety of factors, including “property owners not wanting trees on the parkways adjacent to their homes” limit those efforts.
The new ordinance would apply to all trees with a diameter greater than 6 inches at a height of 4.5 feet above the ground. The tree initiative report indicates that amounts to roughly 78% of all the trees in Evanston.
Ald. Krissie Harris (2nd) and Ald. Tom Suffredin (6th) both voiced concerns about the extent to which the ordinance encroaches on private property rights, but in the end only Suffredin voted against the measure, which was approved for introduction 7-0.
It is scheduled for final adoption at the Council’s next meeting on Sept. 11.
Can we please stop coming up with solutions for problems we don’t even know we have? Giving homeowners even more restrictions?Spend the money on planting more trees….there are dead city trees everywhere
“Staff says the Village of Wilmette, which adopted a similar ordinance two years ago, has had no requests for tree removal permits since its ordinance was adopted.”
So if there is no revenue from a permit process in Wilmette and no data to support the cost of $115K per year to hire the tree police, why did the city council pursue this? I would prefer my dangerous sidewalk gaps be fixed or more parkway trees be planted or the stumps in the parkway actually be ground down by the city.
Another day of being upset with how the city council and mayor are managing to create more hurdles to remaining in Evanston.
I agree with DG and Mimi Roeder
I would rather they hire more police officers than Tree Cops!
GREAT IDEA Carol! BUT…… No need to hire police because the “do gooders” of E Town will only cast scorn and ridicule on them for uh……. doing their job. Evanston is now the north, north Rogers Park. UGH!!!
We have plenty of trees on our property that we have planted, and we spend plenty of money every year maintaining them. The last few storms took down a lot of branches from those trees in spite of regular maintenance. That increased our expenses along with the damage to our front porch from a limb after the last storm in June. Meanwhile, a couple of problem trees on a rental property go unattended. One is dead, according to the arborist who does our work. Better to focus on problem trees than to require citizens to plant them or remove them (unless they’re diseased)
Really stupid ideas from this Council. #enough
Does the tree police person take the winter off?
“Evanston’s Environment Board has been pushing for years for the city to assert control over trees on private property, and it’s co-chair, Wendy Pollock, urged council members Monday night to approve the ordinance.”
Here’s is the face of busybodies who are making Evanston worse off with our own money. She gets to snitch on people she doesn’t like, and we get to pay for the $150K/year tree cop who is going to do her bidding.
Btw, does $150K/year include the pension and all the other good stuff?
And the feckless Council just makes my blood boil…
One of the issues with planting more trees is that some homeowners don’t water them as needed until they are established, or during droughts after they are established. Residents may be renters, overwhelmed caring for family, working multiple jobs, don’t want a higher water bill, etc.
After a tree was planted, care directions would be hung on doorknobs, but participation was uneven. The trees that weren’t watered died.
First they came for my trees and I shrugged. Next they came for the geraniums and I reluctantly objected, but later said OK.
Today, there was a knock on the door and its was the tomato plant police. “Don’t worry,” said the vegetation officer, and then the scariest eleven words ever spoken flowed from his overreaching government mouth, “I’m with the city of Evanston and I’m here to help.”
These kinds of solutions looking for problems are dragging our community down. I’m wondering if the City Council members take the time to read the comments here (and previously) to understand the will of the people they represent.
It’s just spend and tax… This is a bad idea and we surely should expect the added costs of lawsuits that will no doubt result from diminishing property rights.
Respectfully, Brian G. Becharas
Crime perpetrated by trees on the north shore is rampant. I was robbed at branchpoint by maple tree last fall on Dempster. And this spring a European buckthorn stole my bike while I was inside Bennison’s. I for one, support aggressive tree policing in Evanston.
Maybe Wendy Pollock should be made co-chair of the Sidewalk Board and she could urge council members to spend money fixing a real problem that already exists, our bad sidewalks. And let’s not do a half-backed patch job with asphalt applied over concrete. My wife has fallen twice in the past two years on walks that are cracked and uneven.
I grew up on Asbury Avenue (central Evanston) near Church Street, and always wondered why the Asbury, Church, Wesley streets were green with foliage and wonderful big hrees. But you get to Emerson Street, and nary one in sight, everything concrete and homes cheek-by-jowl. Now, 50 years later, STILL no trees! How about more greenspace at the curbs there in order to plant some?
Your article about “planting trees, not policing them” was very informative. I don’t live in Evanston but as a close neighbor I agree this idea doesn’t make sense. Money would be better spent on trees for neighborhoods lacking foliage or on a real policeman. P.S.– I loved Stella’s comments about “criminal trees”
A city in desperate need of everything is considering hiring an inspector for a position that isn’t needed.
Quoting from the article, “The new city inspector would police private property, seeking to prevent homeowners from cutting down healthy trees — despite city staff conceding they have no data about how often that happens and that they haven’t bothered to ask local arborists for information that might provide the answers.”
Wildly, the ordinance passes committee and is approved for introduction by the council 7-1.
The city is $250 million in debt. Crime is increasing, buildings and transportation infrastructure are crumbling, the streets are dirty, addicts sleep and congregate in the city’s public square, and the police are underfunded. The council passes ordinance after ordinance that proves what everyone knows — Evanston is anti-business. Next time you’re walking downtown take a count of the vacant storefronts. I bet we have nearly 50% retail vacancies.
Evanston ‘s city manager, the mayor, every single alderman, and every member of the city staff are purposely negligent or asleep on the job. No city deserves this cast of incompetents.
The bell is tolling.
The mind of a far-out progressive:
Policing people cutting down trees on their own property: good
Policing people damaging others’ property: bad
Policing people committing violent crimes against others: bad
So that begs the question: will the tree cop seek to enforce the law against people who trespass to cut down other people’s trees? Or is that too discriminatory?
Evanston’s decision to prioritize a tree cop over planting more trees raises questions, but community involvement in tree preservation is a positive step for urban environments.
Homeowners are taking down 100+-year-old trees around Evanston, not for construction or because they are a danger to property, people or pets, but because they cast shade or drop leaves. In my block, two came down Monday. This is all over Evanston. This at a time when we need to prepare for heat, the biggest weather-related killer. Mature trees are essential to cool urban neighborhoods, not just with shade, but also with the moistened oxygen they release. Heated concrete can be as much as 40 degrees hotter than a tree-lined street. Trees are a neighborhood asset, and it is right for the community to have some voice in their conservation. Yes, plant trees, but also save the old ones. In a time of climate disruption, it cannot be an either-or proposition.
In the last four years, the city has removed three diseased trees on my block and has replaced none of them. Can we stop worrying about what the rich people are doing and making sure we have equitable services for our entire community. We pay Evanston property taxes too.
Yippee! NOT! Today’s editorial in the Chicago Tribune (Sept. 1) mentions Evanston & the “tree cop” idea. Its comments mirror what these post here say.
This site is referenced for the 2nd part of the two-part editorial (“Go jump in the lake…”. Congrats Bill Smith. Without the commentary on this site, it might not be possible to know how many citizens are totally against still another dreadful idea from the City Council.
A partial quote from the article: “In recent days, Evanston, which loves to regulate it citizenry like no place in Illinois…” That snippet pretty much sums up what the CC has been up to this past year.
The first thing Evanston should do to police its trees is to tell residents to stop volcano mulching them. It kills them slowly. All over Evanston, ignorant landscapers are following a fashion trend that is killing mature trees and dooming young trees.
There should be NO mulch touching the bark of the tree. There should be a THIN layer of mulch around the base of the tree.
Evanston isn’t even policing its own street trees and in a few years, as climate change worsens, there will be heat islands all over the place because all the trees currently dressed up with volcano mulch will be dead and gone.
Google it if you have trees. Every University extension, arborist organization and tree specialist worth a dime is warning people not to do it. Mulch under trees shouldn’t be mounded.