Editorial: Chicago needs trees, and stronger action to protect them
In today’s divisive political climate, perhaps it should come as no surprise that a blameless symbol of Nature’s bounty is controversial.
We’re talking about trees being planted on the public grounds of Chicago and other cities. You might think everyone could agree that trees are good. They help to cool homes, streets and sidewalks on hot summer days, and beautify areas awash in concrete.
Not so fast, neighbor. Some people don’t like trees, especially trees they perceive as obstructing their views, impinging on their properties and requiring too much trimming, cleanup or other maintenance.
Trees have become political hot potatoes. In June, the Tribune reported on how the city’s affluent neighborhoods enjoy lush abundance while poorer communities get overlooked.
Trees also exemplify how aldermanic privilege can work against the city’s interests. In Chicago, for years trees on public property have been removed based on an alderman’s arbitrary say-so. As a result, the city spends public money to plant trees while at the same time paying crews to chop them down.
Trees are part of the Biden administration’s new Inflation Reduction Act. The legislation, now awaiting Biden’s signature, earmarks $1.5 billion to, yes, plant more trees, giving an unaccustomed boost to a low-profile urban forestry program. GOP opponents have criticized the legislation as a tax-and-spend monster.
We’re pleased to take a side on this issue: Bring on the trees.
Chicago needs more trees, on the South Side, West Side, North Side and downtown. Illinois needs them in the suburbs, exurbs and the publicly owned forests downstate. Why? For starters, as the Tribune report highlighted, trees can reduce the hotter, wetter impacts of climate change in the Great Lakes region. More city trees can mean cooler temperatures, less flooding, cleaner air and lower bills for air conditioning.
Beyond that, disease and parasites have taken a terrible toll on trees across the Midwest. Older residents can still recall the graceful streetscapes before the ravages of Dutch Elm disease. More recently, the invasive emerald ash borer devastated one of the region’s most common shade trees. At the same time, buckthorn, a small tree regarded as an invasive species, has disrupted ecosystems and crowded out native varieties.
As a practical matter, trees are a good investment. In its report, the Tribune analyzed the locations in which Chicago planted “street trees” — those found on the strip of grass between roadways and sidewalks. Between 2011 and 2021, planting rates were higher in whiter, wealthier neighborhoods, where property values also tend to be higher.
The Tribune analysis found that Chicago parkways have lost far more greenery in the past decade than they’ve gained. For every tree planted, the city has removed about two trees. Even as mature trees were being struck down at high rates, the city cut back plantings from 17,000 a year during the administration of tree-hugging former Mayor Richard M. Daley to a few thousand annually in recent years.
In April, Mayor Lori Lightfoot launched a “tree-equity program” that gives priority to plantings in neglected communities, using $46 million from pandemic recovery funds. That’s a start, but she also needs to align the practices of city departments, utilities and aldermen to ensure Chicago builds back its tree canopy instead of continuing to chop down big trees faster than little ones can be planted.
As Lightfoot points out, the city’s canopy coverage is well below optimal at just 16%, and in underserved communities coverage varies from 4% to 10%. While those percentages are tricky to measure, and the numbers don’t always compare from city to city, New York is considered a model for coordinated pro-tree efforts, and its canopy is richer than Chicago’s as a result.
Without giving specifics about how she would accomplish it, Lightfoot pledged to protect and grow this “critical piece of our city’s infrastructure,” as she described it. “As a city, we must address Chicago’s continual net loss of trees and apply comprehensive, equitable strategies that will not only increase the city’s tree canopy but ensure that underinvested communities are prioritized and included in the process.”
Nice sentiment, but it needs teeth.
One idea is to revive a policy attributed to Daley that limited the number of trees aldermen could order taken down in their wards. Better still would be a requirement to plant at least enough saplings in a ward to make up for the amount of mature trees removed.
Put down the chain saws and start planting.
Join the discussion on Twitter @chitribopinions and on Facebook.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
