October 23, 2009
The latest word on efforts to continue to expand the planting of oaks in the Village against Urban Forestry Best Practices, threat of disease and negative impact to property values:
This Wednesday, October 21, at the Parks and Parkways Board Meeting, Commissioner Anderson handed a piece of paper to the Village Manager as the meeting was being conducted, and as she was sitting in attendance at the public meeting. Since communications between Commissioners and a Manager falls under the context of government open to all under Sunshine, Ms. Garcia professionally saw no problem (and in fact surely recognized the need) in handing a copy of the communication to a board member when he asked to see it.
The paper was in fact an email with some potential impact regarding Parks & Parkways Business. The email was one sent to Bob Anderson’s email account (Gmail) and dated August 19th, 2009, from Keith A. Bradley, Assistant Director — Institute for Regional Conservation, regarding an issue brought up at a past Commission meeting and at various past Parks & Parkway meetings — namely the need to emphasize biodiversity here in the Village and diversify our tree canopy.
During the meeting, Commissioner Anderson verbally challenged the right of board members to look at his communication to the manager. He indicated that it was NOT part of Sunshine. However, the nature of the mail, although in part commenting on the lack of immediate threat to our Coastal Live Oaks through a limited review of the status of Sudden Oak Death — also included this parting admonition: “In case something like Sudden Oak Death does reach Florida, it (expanding biodiversity, not lessening it, in our urban forest) will be a good insurance policy”.
In addition, this statement is in keeping with the recommendation from the Village’s own Urban Forestry report several years ago to lessen the planting of oaks, and yet, unfortunately, continues to this day.
The email to Anderson did not detail how Sudden Oak Death has infected oaks in the White Oak family (like our Coastal Live Oaks) in the laboratory, and how the threat is still possible for the future.
But that really is not the main point. Instead, we need to follow best practices because they are best practices, and because any number of pathogens might impact the Village if we don’t diversify our tree canopy. Equally, if we follow best practices, we are in a better position to assure our receiving future grants from State and/or Federal agencies that recognize the need for diversity as a safe-guard against tree loses.
Last, there have been other instances where Commissioner Anderson seemed to have a limited knowledge of Sunshine Law, or, in fact, interpreted Sunshine erroneously at times. So this organization would hope that the Village Attorney and Manager would review if a copy of the aforementioned email communication can be released. And, more specifically, if it is within Sunshine Law for citizens to ask for a copy under the protections of open and transparent government.
Last, below are a few web snippets that reflect additional information regarding the oak blight.
…oaks such as the white oaks and red oaks…are not yet known to be natural hosts for the disease; however, they have been successfully infected in the lab.
http://web.utk.edu/%7Emtaylo29/pages/sudden%20oak%20death.html
(However, from GA Forestry Commission Report there seems recognition of white/live oaks as host): A positive camellia plant was retrieved by APHIS, GDA, UGA, and GFC. The infected plant, mulch within 6 feet and potting soil in the planting hole were removed and incinerated. … Other known hosts include azaleas, vaccinium, roses, and the Georgia State Tree: Live Oak (Quercus virginiana).
http://proxy.stu.edu:2225/iw-search/we/InfoWeb?p_product=AWNB&p_theme=aggregated5&p_action=doc&p_docid=12B1B8B64CDDE260&p_docnum=31&p_queryname=6
Another report that hints at the spread of the disease in ways yet undetermined…
“Laboratory tests indicate that many more plant species, both wild and cultivated, are potentially
susceptible to P. ramorum.”
http://agr.wa.gov/plantsinsects/Diseases/SOD/docs/PhytophthoraRamorumGuide.pdf
September 7, 2009
Will Sudden Oak Death (SOD) make the leap across the country, from West Coast to East?
It appears it already has — at least in terms of the spores of the fungus that have escaped infected nurseries.
According to recent scientific studies — hytophthora ramorum — the tree pathogen that causes SOD, is persisting in water sources near some of the nurseries in the following states that originally received tainted stock: Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Washington, North and South Carolina.
What does this mean for Biscayne Park? Maybe everything! Although South Florida is a unique ecosystem, different from not only California, but also the rest of the Southeastern US, we share one thing in common with our Southern neighbors. A prevalence of a type of coastal oak that stretches up from Florida through Virginia — the Live Oak – Quercus Virginiana.
And although SOD has been studied for over 14 years and combated with millions of dollars of federal and state funds — the disease continues to kill tens of thousands of oak trees in California where it first took hold before spreading into Oregon. If it comes here, it appears it might equally be impossible to stop.
So how do we improve our odds?
1: Stop planting row after row of oaks now, so we can put more space between our existing oaks so the disease will be less likely to easily move (vector) from one tree to the other by windblown water, or from one area of our Village to another.
2: Let’s diversify and plant other beautiful trees between our oaks, including: Mahogany, Gumbo Limbo, Strangler Fig, Buttonwood, Pigeon Plum, Geigers, Royal Poincianas, Tropical Chestnuts and more, to assure that future residents will have tree-lined medians to enjoy as we do today.
Only time will tell whether the great old coastal oaks of the American South succumb, and it may be years or decades before we know. If it happens, the eastern coastal forests (urban and natural) will be irrevocably changed, and the disaster will be not unlike the Chestnut Blight or the loss of all the Dutch Elms that once shaded America’s eastern cities.
Regardless, the time to plan is now: and we have much to gain in terms of beauty and interest by diversifying our trees while lessening our liability and protecting our village property values.
(Source article for update on spread of SOD authored by the San Francisco Chronicle and printed July 29, 2009 in the Jefferson City News Tribune (MO).
August 13, 2009
At the last “special commission meeting” (one held between regular monthly meetings), on July 29, 2009, several residents were present and wished to speak on commission plans to approve an RFP to go out in newspapers as the ad for our new Village Manager.
Commissioner Mallette led the discussion and vote against Commissioner Bernard’s motion that citizens who were present should be allowed to speak. Commissioner Mallette said that it should be up to the Mayor to allow or not allow public participation. It followed that the vote was 4-1 to empower the Mayor to arbitrarily decide whether two professionals in the audience should be able to comment and provide advice.
After the vote, those present were not allowed to speak until after the vote on the RFP, and, in fact, not until after the meeting had officially ended.
This appears to be in opposition to the intent of the Citizen’s Bill of Rights in our Village Charter. The Village Attorney, whose employment is at the will of the Commission, sided with the 4 who voted to limit public input.
Below is an excerpt from our Charter to see whether you think the commission acted in violation of the principle. You might note that the arguable point is that the Commission only appears to have the right to limit comment to the extent that orderly business is maintained (for example, only allowing citizens to speak at a specific point on the agenda marked “citizen comments on agenda items”; or limiting speech to 2 minutes per person, etc.). But it clearly appears that citizen’s have to right to address our governing bodies. And it is clearly a “Right”…not an arbitrary and occasional benefit.
From the BP Citizen’s Bill of Rights in our Charter:
A (5) Right to be Heard. So far as the orderly conduct of public business permits, any interested person has the right to appear before the Commission or agency, board, committee, authority or department for the presentation, adjustment or determination of an issue, request, or controversy within the jurisdiction of the Village. Matters shall be scheduled for the convenience of the public. The Commission shall adopt agenda procedures and schedule hearings in a manner that will enhance the opportunity for public participation. Nothing herein shall prohibit any governmental entity or agency from imposing reasonable time limits and procedures for the presentation of a matter.
This editorial board recommends that, in the future, all agendas posted for every commission, board and committee meeting allow a place and time in the agenda for public comment to occur before any discussion or votes. This would let the public know about their rights, promote knowledge of our Charter, encourage public contribution and expertise, and at the same time assure that the orderly conduct of business is upheld.
Send us an email on what you think.
–The Editors
July 31, 2009
At the next Biscayne Park Foundation Meeting (immediately preceding the Commission Meeting of August 4th), our elected officials will likely hear our outgoing Village Manager Mr. Frank Spence make a recommendation that commissioners allow a mass of 85 oak trees to be planted in Biscayne Park. This was the recent recommendation of Mr. Dan Keys (Chair, Parks & Parkways, who was appointed by Commissioner Bob Anderson), and the P & P Board.
Why is this a problem? Back in 2005, Biscayne Park received a grant to develop an inventory of trees on public medians so we could better manage our “urban forest” — which is at the heart of our bird sanctuary status, walkable and livable streets, property values and beautiful Village.
The report stated that we should refrain from planting oaks for 5 years, and said we needed to plant more diverse species, now and into the next 10 years. Why? Because we had an imbalance of almost 25% of our trees in oaks. If an oak blight were to hit us (as is occurring in California and spreading rapidly), 1 out 4 of our trees might die. And adding more oaks planted closely, one right after the other in a line in our medians or swales, as is the desire of the Chair of the P & P, will make blight even more likely to spread if it arrives here. Moreover, it increases the threat to our older beautiful mature oaks that everyone appreciates.
On the other hand, we would get back in balance if our commissioners heed the warnings and vote “NO” on planting the oaks this Tuesday, and “YES” on mandating that these “free” oaks…that were donated with the purpose of fund raising…be sold to other people outside the Village. This way, we can then buy other types of trees, and work to maintain and expand bio-diversity as the urban planning experts, forestry and plant disease scientists recommend.
If we adhere to the important rule found in our tree report: “That no more than 10% of any one species make up an urban forest” then our potential loss might only be 1 out of 10 of our trees; and, if we focus in the next 10 years on planting different types of shade and flowering trees, we can increase the beauty and interest of our forest for pedestrians at the same time.
In addition, ominously, when combined with our beautiful Coconut Palms, the oak count combined with palms made up 44% of our tree canopy in select prominent areas of Village land as of 2005. We have a potential loss of 1 out of 2 trees in these tree inventory identified zones, if a Lethal Yellowing of palms returns (which happens periodically) along with an oak blight. In the rest of the Village, this same dynamic of imbalance, if not corrected, could allow 1 out of 3 trees to die and have to be removed. Property values would decline significantly in comparison to other communities who manage their trees better; and the cost of removing dead or dying trees would be of severe impact on the Village budget, and the taxpayer’s pocket book.
So, why and how has there not been a correction since the 2005 report? A significant number of oaks were planted under the direction of the P & P Board (and former Median Committee; and longstanding Chair Mr. Keys) after 2005, despite his awareness of the report; and approximately 70 additional oaks were added in 2008, again by the P & P Board and Mr. Keys, and approved by the Commission. And now there is talk of another 85 oaks being added in 2009 or early 2010. The desire and rationale as expressed by Mr. Keys is “uniformity” of appearance.
Mr. Keys stated that there was a reason that Dutch Elms were almost singularly planted over a century ago to achieve a certain neat uniform look: people liked it*. But Mr. Keys chooses to minimize the fact they were all subsequently wiped out by disease, leaving main streets across America barren and without shade for decades. When asked at one point if he was willing to take the chance with Biscayne Park. His answer: Continue to plant oaks; and…”Yes”; so be it; if the oaks die “we will start all over”.
*(Note: visit the community of “The Crossings” in West Kendall to see an exemplary urban forest of high diversity yet uniform appearance, and how one is not mutually exclusive, as Mr. Keys might seem to argue.)
To some of us, Mr. Keys attitude is reckless and inexcusable in a public official; and, moreover, we would prefer that Mr. Keys should learn from what many have learned during our economic recession — “Don’t Put All Your Eggs in One, or Even Two or Three baskets” — with either your retirement portfolio, or, equally now, our respective Village Tree Portfolio.
Besides ignoring the need for a moratorium, the Village also is poised on August 4th, unless the commission votes against, to ignore the “Right-Tree-Right-Place” concept. The Chair of the Parks & Parkways Board has similarly recommended, in opposition to this best practice, that the Commission…yes, you guessed it…agree to plant more oaks…specifically in places we were told not to plant them, because of proximity to power lines (by our State of Florida Urban Forester).
The cost if we ignore our State official: over time, more power outages in the Village after storms; high cost to prune the trees (either by FPL or Biscayne Park); unsightly trees that are carved apart in a big unnatural open “V” in the canopy — to keep power lines from discharging current and becoming a threat of electrocution for residents; and the loss of the opportunity to have smaller and other types of diverse trees that either flower or support our bird population in ways the oaks do not.
Also, we stand to alienate future State grant review committees who, if they find out, would question the Village’s ability to manage itself in this regard, and hesitate to throw good tax dollars after that which was poorly and improperly done.
Our Commissioners have been advised of this problem, and now need to correct the situation and demand adherence to scientific and urban planning best practices by Mr. Keys and the P & P Board.
If you have an interest in this issue, please contact them and let then know how you feel; and attend Park & Parkways Board meetings to help develop government accountability.
Upcoming commission meetings will be crucial — to protect our village and your property values.
–The Editors
Related Article: http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/fletcher/programs/nursery/metria/metria07/m79.pdf