news-record.com

One house, one tree.

That's the gist of one of the proposed new development rules for Greensboro.

Every new house would require at least one tree, say the new rules, which would take effect in January.

And why not?

What's not to like about trees?

They provide shade and help contain erosion. They can reduce energy bills. And they simply make for more pleasant and inviting surroundings.

But some people would like to tell the city where it can stick its trees.

For one thing, they say, trees add cost. Clear-cutting is cheaper for builders than preserving standing trees or planting saplings. And whatever additional costs the builder incurs typically are passed to the consumer.

Then there are the twin headaches of maintenance and repair: pruning, raking, and if bad comes to worse, removing a fallen tree from where your roof used to be.

Finally, there is simply our aversion to being told by the government that we have to do something on our own property.

Considering all of the arguments for and against this particular provision, the argument for trees still wins easily. One tree per lot isn't asking much, and the aesthetic and environmental payoffs appear worth it. It's doubtful that the extra $100 each tree is estimated to cost should be a deal-breaker in any potential house sale.

Trees also increase sales appeal and add long-term value to a property.

That said, Greensboro residents should be careful not to miss the forest for these trees. There's a lot more to the new land development ordinance than that.

This is a 514-page document (obviously, lots of trees gave their lives for hard-copy versions) that contains numerous other notable provisions.

Some should find little opposition. For instance, the plan calls for more bike racks and bus shelters in some developments.

The ordinance also rightly links land use and transportation by encouraging high-density developments such as apartment and condominium complexes near access to major roads and to public transit. And it stresses making the ordinance as user-friendly as a possible -- as in being easily found online and written (eureka!) in plain English.

Some other changes could be more contentious. One, for instance, limits the expansion of churches and large schools in neighborhoods. The new rules would require those types of facilities to have access to major roadways and would regulate off-site parking.

This is a sensitive issue. Both schools and places of worship traditionally tend to be constructive neighbors. But the expansion of some especially large church facilities has concerned some neighbors, who can feel overwhelmed by the sheer size of the buildings.

Similarly, the rules also emphasize a "contextual-sensitive approach," meaning that a new house built in an existing neighborhood shouldn't disrupt the general feel and character of that neighborhood.

Some residents have been off-put by the building of "McMansions" that dwarf other houses in their neighborhoods.

The plan, finally, requires developers to document their efforts to meet with residents before requesting a rezoning. This rule represents a compromise. An earlier draft required an advance meeting with residents before rezoning requests.

Either way, the rule, coupled with the city's restored protest petition law, ought to head off conflicts by encouraging collaboration.

At first blush, these changes seem fair and thoughtful. But it's never easy legislating taste. Especially in a city where a resident once painted his house purple as a statement of his property rights.

But it's in the community's best interest to set reasonable standards. It's also in the community's interest to know, understand and have a chance to question the impending changes.

Two public comment sessions already have been held concerning the proposed rewrite. But it was clear in the fallout over the tree issue that more people need to be aware. So the city has extended the deadline for public comment to Sept. 30.

That should be helpful. The more people know, the better.

And the likelier they are to feel ownership of the new rules we'll grow by.