[Surrealplaces]

Why not just spend the money. It isn’t better to wait. Additional trees also accrue compounding benefits over time.

There is no reason to wait. You don’t end up with net more trees by waiting. For a very very long time.

I swear the Alberta heritage fund has poisoned Albertans minds.

It isn’t like there is surplus revenue to do this at the city level that we want to remove from the economy, which is the main benefit (of the investing generation) of a sovereign wealth fund.

The fund’s purpose is not to act like a huge retirement account even if that is a side benefit. The main purpose is to turn one time revenue (oil and gas) into recurring revenue because it is highly inequitable to spend today when we as a society also benefit from the economic activity directly via employment.

A significant side benefit is reducing Dutch disease by explicitly not investing any of the money in your home country/currency.

Any ways. If we want more trees we should spend money to plant trees. Why would we expect our descendants to want to plant trees with money we saved for them when we don’t want to spend money we currently have saved on trees?

I agree 100% planting now would be the best. I think people might be misunderstanding my original post, I should have clarified that I wouldn't want to see existing tree planting dropped in favor of an endowment fund. As someone in the middle age bracket I'd rather see a much bigger effort to plant trees now, but it doesn't have to be one or the other. I think we can still do both, where the fund is similar to an endowment fund for a university. The university still has a regular annual budget, but an endowment fund on the side for use over future years. I would never want to replace the existing yearly budget for a future fund. I want to continue seeing trees planted before I die.

An endowment fund on the side would end up being the same as a budget increase, but I think it would be easier to put through compared to standard budget increase every year. Plus I think it would be easier to pull in funding from other levels of government, or possibly private partnerships, or donations from philanthropists, etc.. if it was a specific fund dedicated to tree planting.

 

[Chinook Arch]

An endowment fund on the side would end up being the same as a budget increase, but I think it would be easier to put through compared to standard budget increase every year. Plus I think it would be easier to pull in funding from other levels of government, or possibly private partnerships, or donations from philanthropists, etc.. if it was a specific fund dedicated to tree planting.

If you frame it as a climate change initiative, you can get all kinds of contributions from multiple sources.

 

[BKha]

it doesn't have to be one or the other. I think we can still do both, where the fund is similar to an endowment fund for a university. The university still has a regular annual budget, but an endowment fund on the side for use over future years.

Yes, it needs to be both. We are already behind in tree planting as it is and we need to catch up, which means planting a lot of trees right now.

Plus I think it would be easier to pull in funding from other levels of government, or possibly private partnerships, or donations from philanthropists, etc.. if it was a specific fund dedicated to tree planting.

Agreed. It’s easier to get others like private, individuals, corporations, etc. to contribute to an endowment fund than it is to the city directly. It’s where a special fund would come in handy and I see the benefit.
I’d like to see a general push for more tree, planting and urban forest, starting with an increase in a budget and a fund like this can be done on the side at the same time as part of the push.

 

[MichaelS]

This whole discussion needs to keep in mind the City doesn't adequately fund the maintenance of our existing street trees, so any increased in planting will result in more dead trees, or will need a corresponding tax increase (or service cut elsewhere) to make sure the trees that do get planted don't just end up dead after 1-2 years, like so many of the current ones do.

 

[Surrealplaces]

One would hope if the city increased budget to plant more trees they'd have the sense to also maintain them properly, but given their past track record, who knows.

 

[darwink]

endowment fund

Endowment funds are restricted gifts. Using tax money to create a restricted fund is folly imo. Especially since it really it wouldn’t really be restricted in the end.

 

[darwink]

One would hope if the city increased budget to plant more trees they'd have the sense to also maintain them properly, but given their past track record, who knows.

The city acts on complaints. If a tree is obviously water starved 311 it.

Without the complaints there is no data until the trees obviously die.

 

[darwink]

This whole discussion needs to keep in mind the City doesn't adequately fund the maintenance of our existing street trees, so any increased in planting will result in more dead trees, or will need a corresponding tax increase (or service cut elsewhere) to make sure the trees that do get planted don't just end up dead after 1-2 years, like so many of the current ones do.

Only vary rarely will capital spending decrease operating spending overtime so this is true for everything.

I’d argue city taxes should be much much higher.

 

[MichaelS]

The city acts on complaints. If a tree is obviously water starved 311 it.

Without the complaints there is no data until the trees obviously die.

This method is futile. About 40% of the trees around the storm pond near my house are dead. I have called into 311. I don't ever get a response.

 

[darwink]

This method is futile. About 40% of the trees around the storm pond near my house are dead. I have called into 311. I don't ever get a response.

The statistic is collected and reported on, considered at budget formation. When deciding between upping the pothole budget and upping the tree care budget, these statistics matter.

 

[The Familia]

I think at this point it would be really hard for the city to try and "tree up" the entire city, it is simply too big. What the city does need to do is focus on the downtown, beltline, and other high pedestrian/traffic nodes to try and increase the canopy. While having a forest of trees running along side Deerfoot or Stoney would be nice, it is simply never going to happen. The city needs to ensure trees are planted and properly maintained in the downtown core, Eau Claire, Riverwalk, Kensington, Memorial Drive, Beltline, Bridgeland, Edmonton Trail, 16th Ave, East Village, West Village, Marda Loop, University District, etc. Let's focus on making the cities biggest pedestrian zones the greenest and then go from there.

 

[whatchyyc]

I hope we get better city guidelines for street trees to promote their health. how many trees just don't have enough soil volume and get sprayed with salt every year? can't really fix that by watering

 

[A-OK]

I think at this point it would be really hard for the city to try and "tree up" the entire city, it is simply too big. What the city does need to do is focus on the downtown, beltline, and other high pedestrian/traffic nodes to try and increase the canopy. While having a forest of trees running along side Deerfoot or Stoney would be nice, it is simply never going to happen. The city needs to ensure trees are planted and properly maintained in the downtown core, Eau Claire, Riverwalk, Kensington, Memorial Drive, Beltline, Bridgeland, Edmonton Trail, 16th Ave, East Village, West Village, Marda Loop, University District, etc. Let's focus on making the cities biggest pedestrian zones the greenest and then go from there.

Agreed that those nodes require prioritization but the City of Edmonton is making progress here when it comes to expanding their urban forest city-wide.

"The City of Edmonton says it will plant two million new trees by 2030, at a cost of about $114 million.... The price per tree tends to vary between $23 and $1,700, depending on the type and age of a tree, where it’s planted, and whether it is planted by city staff, volunteers, or contractors. Trees planted in “hardscape” areas like sidewalks and parking lots can cost $17,000 or more, due to design and construction expenditures for underground structures and navigation around utility systems."

https://edmonton.taproot.news/news/2023/03/17/city-targets-2030-for-two-million-new-trees

 

[CBBarnett]

I think at this point it would be really hard for the city to try and "tree up" the entire city, it is simply too big. What the city does need to do is focus on the downtown, beltline, and other high pedestrian/traffic nodes to try and increase the canopy. While having a forest of trees running along side Deerfoot or Stoney would be nice, it is simply never going to happen. The city needs to ensure trees are planted and properly maintained in the downtown core, Eau Claire, Riverwalk, Kensington, Memorial Drive, Beltline, Bridgeland, Edmonton Trail, 16th Ave, East Village, West Village, Marda Loop, University District, etc. Let's focus on making the cities biggest pedestrian zones the greenest and then go from there.

I think there are a few things going on here and they are complementary but not identical issues - street trees v. tree canopy.

Street trees have specific challenges based on their location - part of the street right-of-way. Of the many concerns, the biggest is they aren't prioritized over anything else you need to fit in and below a right-of-way. Are there solutions? Absolutely - but the main thrust isn't actually tree maintenance or budgets, it's getting all that other stuff in the street that impact tree health/viability to reduce the amount of space and impact. Getting utilities to share space better, reducing unnecessary paving especially for no apparent benefit (i.e. the extra wide parking lane thing we do where lanes are randomly 1.2 - 2.5 times a travel lane in the inner city), engineering better soil conditions, changing up the operations of roads (slower speeds reduce salt spray).

The second part is overall tree canopy - this goal can be done by using the vast swathes of city-owned right-of-ways all over the place and invest in trees. This will take mostly just money and effort - and some areas have better local climates to do this than others - some people won't like this as it's not "fair" where trees will live easier. But the land is there and available to meet any goal the city has, assuming they convince themselves that. This can complement private trees that should be encouraged as part of any development.

The one thing tree discussions get caught up in is this artificially scarcity thing: we only have so much money for trees, where can we prioritize within that tree-only paradigm? When we should be most focused on everything else instead that gets in the way of healthy trees existing - the tree budget is only a part of the problem, most of it relates to how other competitors for space are inefficient and excessively prioritized.

 

[Beltline_B]

Looking this pic taken by @GoVertical you can see sure the difference in trees in the SW compared to the NE. You wouldn't even think they're the same city.