City Trees

COMPETING PRIORITIES At the beginning of my career, I worked for a small con- sulting company whose services focused on urban forest management planning, tree inventory and mapping, pro- tection and mitigation planning for construction near trees, and training for tree care and urban forest man- agement. We were also the arborist of record for several municipalities, and I enjoyed helping communities plan for the future of their urban forests and document their present state. This type of planning work brought me into contact with numerous stakeholders and natural resource managers working and living in the commu- nities I served, and we did not always see eye to eye. Common disagreements centered around species and site selection, clearance pruning, whether trees should be removed, and where to focus limited resources to maximize urban forest benefits. When I focused on the situation and the professional I was working with, it was difficult to find a path forward. I found the most success if we focused on the stakeholders each of us represented and communicated their wants and needs. In that light, it became significantly easier to find common ground and come up with shared goals that we could all accept and be comfortable with. COMMUNICATION IS KEY One of my starkest examples of poor communica- tion occurred during a conference bringing together arborists, urban foresters, and shade tree commis- sioners. Three representatives from local utilities came to present overviews of their forestry pro- grams and participate in a round table discussion for attendees to ask questions. During the discussion, a handful of attendees began to shout about trees that were butchered and ruined in their towns. Several had brought signs showing pictures of disfigured trees and bold messages against utility pruning, and they quickly turned the discussion into a demonstration. It was only a small portion of the crowd causing the fuss, but it so derailed the discussion that the session was forced to conclude early. Little practical conver- sation had occurred, and I left disappointed. I wanted to hear how the utilities would have responded to the hard questions, some of which had been on my mind for a while: How do they determine clearance distances? Where do they draw the line between an acceptable pruning and a tree that should be removed? Why don't they update their infrastructure or bury the lines? It planted the seed for me to start thinking about answers to some of those questions, and how two different types of urban foresters—utility foresters and shade tree com- missioners—might be able to find common ground. FORESTS AND PEOPLE As a consultant, I enjoyed taking the temperature of towns and neighborhoods as I inventoried. My work took me from 1-square-mile (2.6-square-km) towns to the five boroughs of New York City. In some areas, res- idents would literally run outside shouting at me to not plant a tree, while others would shout to not remove one. I worked with municipalities to create planting plans to mitigate inequity in canopy, but when I'd arrive on planting day expecting the residents to be 20 CityTREES Trees have evolved to compete for available growing space, sometimes creating awkward interactions with the built environment, as is the case for this sassafras (Sassafras albidum) in New Jersey.

• Cover