By Phil Griffin
October 2, 2019
Recent legal actions and statements by the Sierra Club and the Amelia Tree Conservancy do not reflect the will of the majority of hardworking citizens that live, work and pay taxes within the City limits. Recent statements by the group leaders should concern all locals that they are working to usurp the Constitutional rights of all others in the name of Tree Preservation by attempting to limit new residences and business from coming to Fernandina Beach. This is of course after they themselves have secured their own little slice of heaven. Many members of these groups do not reside in Fernandina Beach, yet they are attempting to dictate policy that will impact the quality of life and the tax rates of those of us that do live and work within the city limits.
“Treeligion” promotes a policy to put tree preservation above all other needs. While the goal of preserving heritage trees is noble, the tactics being proposed are misguided and could wreak havoc if they impose economic and financial burdens on residents and small businesses. With the exception of the beachfront houses, in order for virtually every other home to be built, it required the clearing of one or more trees.
As a bonified conservationist with a long history of tree preservation both here on Amelia Island and in Alaska, living for 6 years “off the grid” in a remote cabin, I’m offended to see a group attempt to undermine 250 years of constitutional protection of property rights by linking the concept of tree preservation with a “no new building” as public policy. Both Land Planning and Green Construction methods can be implemented to maximize heritage tree protection. We need to work together and find the right balance between a healthy economy with desirable places to live and work while still protecting the environment.
Installing puppet members on the commission for the sole purpose of stopping all development in the name of tree preservation is disingenuous at best and would do serious damage to the taxpayers and the quality of life here. How about when the puppets apply the same standard of development that was applied to Amelia Bluff subdivision and require that existing homes along Egans Creek be taken through eminent domain. Hundreds of houses from Fort Clinch to Simmons Road would need to be purchased, then bulldozed to restore the tree canopy!
Let’s get back to reality and deal sensibly with tree preservation while at the same time deal with the other pressing needs such as affordable housing, creating high paying jobs, thriving businesses, quality schools and other necessities for a quality of life. The US Constitution provides for the separation of “Treeligion and State” and the 6th Amendment bans imposing a “Treeligious” test as a prerequisite for holding public office. Let’s protect the rule of law and bark up a different tree.
Editor’s Note: Phil Griffin is a licensed Real Estate Broker and Principal of Amelia Coastal Realty on Amelia Island, Florida. He has designed, developed or managed dozens of green projects on behalf of clients.
Tel. 904-556-9140
Years ago Amelia Island was probably covered with trees very similar to how Cumberland Island looks today. So probably every building on Amelia Island is on a parcel of land where trees were cut down. There are ways to preserve trees and both retain and regain canopy other than buying up all of the vacant properties.
Almost every issue has zealots on both ends of the spectrum. I agree with Phil that as far as public comment in social media, town hall meetings, etc. the folks on the treeligion have been more vocal. I don’t believe that any effort to stifle or block development of any property within the rights of its zoning designation would stand up to a court challenge. FL courts have been especially protective of private property rights especially with the Bert Harris Act.
The city of Fernandina Beach has a good (no longer great) tree protection ordinance although its enforcement over the years has been inconsistent. However, as often cited by Ron Sapp, the first statement in that ordinance that “there be no net loss of tree canopy in the city” is a joke ever since the tree protection ordinance was modified (the treeligionists would say decimated) to provide for allowed tree removal without equal replacement. I, along with others, worked with City staff, developers/builders and treeligionists to come up with a reasonable compromise that would permit a reasonable development without unreasonable tree replacement costs. Under the proposed revision, the property owner would be given some level of credit for the trees remaining on the property as an offset against the total diameter of the tree that were required to be removed due to the footprint of the structure and other infrastructure (i.e. driveway, sidewalks). After going through several meetings and discussions at the PAB, the ordinance change went before the City Commission. At the 11th hour before final approval, a potential property owner proposed a higher level of permitted removal without replacement and the city commission caved in. Ironically, that development never took place and the property in questions remains undeveloped today.
So there does need to be a balance. Maintaining a good tree canopy is critical to the city/island’s environment and beauty. We don’t want to become just an island of palm trees. Consistent compliance and enforcement is an important tool.
Perhaps a dose of reality and what they can really do instead of trying to manage other peoples’ property.
The U.S. has 8% of the total forests in the world, and reached a point in 1997 where growth “exceeded harvest by 42%” and we were growing forests at a rate of roughly four times faster than we were in 1920, when our chop-happiness began to level out due to environmental and recreational concerns regarding timber harvest.
https://www.tentree.com/blogs/posts/fact-check-are-there-really-more-trees-today-than-100-years-ago
Mr. Griffin has quite the sense of humor but he’s barking up the wrong tree when describing future eminent domain theories.
Nassau County Sierra Club knows of no one advocating for a radical swath of eminent domain traversing the island. However, we should all be duly worried if development continues at such a rapid pace that Amelia Island becomes “Manhattan South”. We would all do well to remember that both islands are exactly the same size and land mass.
Nassau County Sierra Club will continue to encourage the City to look at changing its development standards and setbacks so that future planning gives more attention to how a building plan interacts with its site and takes into consideration the natural features of the lot.
Such building standards would be akin to the award-winning environmentally-conscious master plan that Charles Fraser created when laying out the original development plans for the Plantation. His style of development highlighted rather than bulldozed natural landscapes and even today it continues to preserve some sense of the island’s natural scenery.
Instigating these best practices would create not only a better built environment and elevated human experiences that would be Tree- mendous for all in Fernandina.
No one on the Board of ATC has any idea where these notions came from. They are ludicrous and certainly did not come from ATC. I would invite Mr. Griffin to discuss our positions with us rather than publishing misinformation. We have always been happy to meet with him in the past and gave him an award a few years ago for his efforts to save a particularly old tree.
I must have missed the provision in the U.S. Constitution that establishes the right for unfettered destruction of natural resources.
Dennis, your language is exactly what Phil writes about. Nobody is doing “unfettered destruction of natural resources” but working within the confines of current regulations. If you believe the regulations aren’t sufficient, then work to change them. I believe the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment gives citizens the right to develop their property within allowed specifications.
Julie, “barking up the wrong tree” – that was a good one!
Is “installing puppet members on the commission” the same thing as voting for them? Just looking for clarification.
Thanks Phil. The city has no business in the real estate business. The tax increase to buy land with no vote is wrong and the Commissioners should be given the boot in the next election. These people need to put there own money where their mouth is or be quiet.
Mr. Griffin you state in your opening sentence that “Recent legal actions and statements by the Sierra Club and the Amelia Tree Conservancy do not reflect the will of the majority of hardworking citizens that live, work and pay taxes within the City limits” – you present this as fact when I can only imagine it’s your impression and that of many with whom you are in contact and it brings into question your other assertions and assessments of the downsides of protecting the forests on Amelia.
Recent events around Amelia Bluff and Amelia River Golf (the auto-centric proposal) show the downsides of trusting that ordinances will be properly followed (reflecting the overall will of the people) and the upside of heightened community engagement to push back against things not viewed by many as being in the best interest of the community. The Sierra Club and ATC, among others, rallied neighbors and other supports to fight for ALL of us – not just for themselves.
Development needs to be in balance with the forests here, especially since so many have been depleted over the past 20-30 years. It costs more to develop AROUND the forest than it does to tear them down and replant and density is almost certainly reduced – and that is unattractive to many both building and buying. But the long-term impact of those short-term economic decisions is massive. Cutting down a 300 yr old live oak and replacing it with palms is not a good trade for anyone over the long run. Going slowly and deliberately to get it RIGHT seems like a good investment for our collective future.
You go on to say “Recent statements by the group leaders should concern all locals that they are working to usurp the Constitutional rights of all others in the name of Tree Preservation by attempting to limit new residences and business from coming to Fernandina Beach.”
Exactly which constitutional rights are at risk here? Groups are lobbying to get zoning changed, density reduced and trees maintained – whose rights does that threaten? Those of future homeowners? of developers looking to make a living? What about the rights of the people already here that invested their labor, hopes and dreams for a style of living that they see as under siege?
You, as an experienced real estate professional, likely know better than most the value premium put on environmental factors around homes and businesses alike – noise, traffic, shade, shelter, aesthetics. There’s a reason for that. Why wouldn’t you want to work to preserve those elements of value that benefit current and future owners (and your past and future clients)?
You suggest “Let’s get back to reality and deal sensibly with tree preservation while at the same time deal with the other pressing needs such as affordable housing, creating high paying jobs, thriving businesses, quality schools and other necessities for a quality of life” I agree. But the problem is that once cleared, trees take decades or longer to recover. A housing project or business project, delayed for a few months or made slightly more costly to deliver a better balance between the needs of the environment and the needs of the inhabitants in the LONG RUN seems like a reasonable price to pay.
And re-development could be a very attractive avenue for meeting the longer term needs of residential and commercial space. It’s harder, takes more vision and some compromises – but it’s worth it when trying to live in better balance with what we have left of the flora and fauna on the island.
Finally, I am not aware of any commission members that are for “stopping all development in the name of tree preservation” – from what I have seen, they all spend countless hours with little thanks trying their best to look out for the residents and the community at large. They could all use your support and assistance instead of your diminution.