Here are the questions I asked Tony Lehrman of which Jay Burke wrote a letter of complaint.
- Smoke detectors increase the cost of housing, is this a good requirement because there is a net benefit to the community?
- Are trees also a net benefit to the community?
- Why should we require one benefit and not the other?
- A Doctor just told us about how trees reduce Asthma, is there not a benefit to health?
- Is the $1.80 figure that a developer gave us particularly burdensome?
- After presenting data I researched, compared with the cities we are competing with don’t we have low development costs?
- Based on scientific studies, there appears to be benefit to place trees at the street, correct?
- Why are we assuming street trees and yard trees are mutually exclusive?
- You agree that this ordinance does not prevent planting trees in the yard?
- Our streets are expensive, correct?
- Isn’t the increased pavement life a good benefit?
- Why do we need to solve every tree problem before we address adding trees to new development?
I had several more questions before discussion was ended by Dennis Hanson.
Questions 1-4 deal with whether of not this made good policy sense, specifically whether the benefits outweighed the costs. [They do]
Questions 5&6 deal with whether our development costs are burdensome, a common RAB complaint. [They aren’t]
Questions 7-9 deal with whether the RAB complaint that this infringes on tree location choice. [It does not]
Questions 10&11 deal with how trees are part of well designed street infrastructure and save taxpayers money. [They do]
Question 12 deals with the RAB assertion that we should take no action unless all tree deficiencies are simultaneously addressed. [Silly]