Anti-housing, self-proclaimed "tree advocates" are missing the forest for the trees - or worse

“I have to wait HOW long?!”

One of the five neighborhood kids gathered around me threw their dirt-caked hands up in disbelief. They were gardening for the first time ever and simply refused to believe that the daffodils we were planting in the setback last winter wouldn’t bloom until the spring. To be fair, it was my first time planting daffodils, too, so what did I know?

I had no idea how these particular daffodils would fare, but over the last 7 years, I have successfully livened up the front setback of our Lake City townhouse complex with a beautiful assortment of thriving native plants. Nootka rose, Oregon grape, red flowering currant, thimbleberry, salal, and salmonberry are but a few of the new beauties. The townhouse complex itself is less than 20 years old, but the entwined dynamic spruce-cedar duo that established naturally sometime after construction has also already grown to tower over our homes, protecting us from the sun and providing perfect branches for perching birds. Juncos, finches, jays, hummingbirds, and bees of all kinds love it here.

Besides adding new greenery to the neighborhood, I’ve also spent the last 7 years watching the neighborhood kids grow up. These kids have lived here for most of their lives and come from renting families. My immediate neighborhood is one of the densest areas in North Seattle and consists of permanent supportive housing, apartments of all types and ages, townhomes, and a smattering of detached single-family homes as well. Together with the presence of the kids, the economic and racial diversity that comes as a result of the housing diversity is what makes my neighborhood so wonderful.

In contrast, anti-housing “tree advocates” often claim that the only thing that makes a neighborhood great is how many “old” trees it has. They might even say outright that the young spruce-cedar combo and assortment of newer native plants loved by the local wildlife in front of our townhouse don’t count. They repeatedly insist that no number of newly planted trees can make up for lost “old” ones, that dense areas cannot possibly have any meaningful greenery, and that we must prevent construction of additional new homes at any cost if it means that even one “old” tree must be cut down (nevermind that their definition of “old” changes in the moment to whatever suits their argument against added housing).

What makes these anti-housing “tree advocates” believe these things? Or at least continue to repeat them? I believe that there are three main types of “tree advocates,” each with different reasons behind their beliefs and actions.

Anti-housing “tree advocate” type #1: The misinformed one

This first type of misinformed “tree advocate” is well-intentioned and simply echoes what they have heard other seemingly trustworthy “tree advocates” say.

When they learn the truth, some misinformed “tree advocates” will change their minds entirely, even turning into staunch pro-housing (and typically anti-excessive parking) advocates instead. Others, however, become “tree advocate” type #2.

I understand this misinformed type of “tree advocate” very well because I used to be one of them. Though I was never fully against new housing, I used to erroneously believe that the most environmentally-friendly type of development was car-dependent single-family neighborhoods and that this kind of development should therefore be everywhere. After all, I grew up in this type of neighborhood and everyone around me was constantly worried about being good environmentalists and saving the trees.

Anti-housing “tree advocate” type #2: The misinforming one

In comparison to anti-housing “tree advocate” type #1, “tree advocate” type #2 is well-informed on the facts and truly understands that building new urban infill housing is actually better for the environment and trees overall. Despite this, these misinforming “tree advocates” continue to spread both full-out lies and half-truths in order to selfishly preserve “old” trees in their own neighborhoods.

For example, this type of “tree advocate” claims that only large, “old” trees sufficiently reduce air pollution and therefore their preservation must be prioritized over construction of new denser infill housing. They purposely bury the lede that sprawling single-family neighborhoods, which induce car dependence and all subsequent car-related emissions, are what cause air pollution in the first place, especially near highways and along arterials where multi-family housing is currently concentrated. They also intentionally hide the fact that ~60% of Seattle’s carbon pollution is from transportation (with 80-85% of that from passenger vehicles), and that denser and more mixed land uses in the city reduce the need to drive.

These misinforming “tree advocates” also claim that we need to save any large, “old” tree in the city because it sucks up a lot of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and thus helps slow climate change. However, they omit that it takes 500 trees to absorb the carbon emissions from one single displaced supercommuter’s car trips over a year (or ~200 trees from one displaced average commuter). Thus by excluding even one new neighbor from their urban neighborhood who now has to live much further away and commute many more miles, a misinforming “tree advocate” will have completely undone the carbon emissions taken up by hundreds of urban trees.

This type of “tree advocate” also likely understands that one acre of new urban infill housing in Seattle saves up to 40 acres (or more if highrises are considered) of farmland or continuous natural habitat containing large trees in nearby suburbs or exurbs. Despite this, they still misleadingly assert that preserving a handful of “old” trees over building hundreds of new housing units in Seattle is better for the environment.

Perhaps the most egregious lie of all that these misinforming “tree advocates” perpetuate, however, is that preventing the construction of new homes and preserving “old” trees in Seattle saves salmon and orcas. In reality, they are intimately familiar with the actual reasons for Pacific Northwest salmon and orca population declines: 1) habitat loss from overdevelopment and armoring of floodplains and shorelines, particularly via siting of unsustainable detached single-family homes along urban creeks and Lake Washington or Puget Sound waterfronts; 2) polluted stormwater runoff containing car tire chemicals, motor oil, and other contaminants; 3) climate change-driven extreme floods, droughts, and hot water temperatures; 4) numerous small fish passage barriers, particularly culverts constructed where roads intersect with streams; 5) large dams that slow/block migration, concentrate salmon as prey, and degrade water quality; and 6) continued destruction of high-quality riparian habitat in suburbs, exurbs, and natural areas for new development.

We already have effective solutions to the above problems: 1) removal of shoreline armoring and a managed retreat from the floodplain; 2) more public transit and fewer car trips; 3) green stormwater infrastructure and decreased fossil fuel emissions; 4) culvert improvements and upgrades; 5) dam removal; and 6) reduced climate-polluting car dependence and habitat destruction via creation of denser, transit and bike-oriented neighborhoods inside already-existing cities. These solutions decidedly do NOT include pushing new development into the suburbs, exurbs, and farmland; preserving lone and disconnected urban trees at the expense of many more within contiguous, high-quality habitat elsewhere; nor forcing longer commutes, more driving, and creation of new roads and associated culverts.

Besides fudging the scientific facts, misinforming “tree advocates” also intentionally promote misunderstandings of how zoning and development work. Some claim that trees and housing cannot coexist, even when they have seen plenty of proof that they can. Or worse, they claim that trees and housing can theoretically coexist, but never with any new buildings planned in their own neighborhood. They purposely refuse to acknowledge that Seattle was built on a clear-cut and that the vibrant second-growth tree canopy we have today was recreated by us, definitively proving that housing and trees can grow and coexist together.

They also deliberately fearmonger by implying that the moment zoning updates take effect in a neighborhood, the entire area will change overnight and every single tree will be cut down at nearly the same time. These misinforming “tree advocates” know the truth though: upzoned neighborhoods will indeed undergo change, but it will be at a gradual pace. In reality, this gradual process of redevelopment and density addition would be akin to the natural succession and cycles experienced in nature, leading to homes and vegetation of all ages and sizes. One or two lots at a time would slowly redevelop with new baby trees and plants added, mirroring the natural thrum of a real forest where storms and lightning fell trees one by one or two by two, and fallen nurse logs and new sunlit openings allow the next generation to grow up and thrive.

Now that we’ve cataloged the most common set of lies they like to spread, let’s talk more about why these misinforming “tree advocates” spread these lies. I believe that there are several reasons, but one that rises above all others: These misinforming “tree advocates” simply care a lot more about the trees in their own neighborhood than trees elsewhere or the environment in general. But they don’t want to fully admit this to themselves or others, and so must maintain the illusion that this is not really the case. Sometimes they may even start to buy into their own made-up stories, which I believe might have happened with “Grandma Brooks’ Cedar.”

These misinforming “tree advocates” also often claim that their top priority is “tree equity,” insinuating that stopping new homes from coming to their own neighborhood in Green Lake, Maple Leaf, or other parts of North Seattle will somehow make it so that the Central District will have more trees (known as “trickle down tree theory”). By pretending to advocate for trees in the Central District or “South Seattle” more generally, this type of misinforming “tree advocate” is able to momentarily delude themselves, as well as unsuspecting onlookers, into thinking that they really do care about other people’s trees, too. Deep down, however, they know the ugly truth – that the more they prevent new housing in their own neighborhoods, the more disproportionate development and displacement pressure builds up in places like the Central District, South Seattle, Chinatown-International District, and my own neighborhood in Lake City, where more density already exists.

Anti-housing “tree advocate” type #3: The fake one

Anti-housing “tree advocate” types #1 and #2 do truly care about trees (at least in their own neighborhood). Anti-housing “tree advocate” type #3, however, is merely pretending. These fake “tree advocates” don’t actually care about trees at all. In fact, their goals are only to preserve their property values, prevent neighborhood change, and exclude any new neighbors, particularly ones that belong to a different race or socioeconomic class.

These fake “tree advocates” know that they can’t just admit these things outright though. They’ve instead figured out that the only remaining somewhat socially acceptable anti-housing argument is tree preservation (even though this is on its last legs, too). This is why they use it. They realize, for example, that it’s no longer considered appropriate to be against new housing in your neighborhood because you “want to preserve the neighborhood character or property values,” or because you “don’t want to live next to people of lower incomes or people of color,” or because “we have a population problem, not a housing problem.” (Don’t you just cringe reading these?)

Some pro-housing tree advocates believe that many anti-housing “tree advocates” fight upzones simply because they don’t realize that speaking out against new townhomes, stacked flats, or other missing middle housing in their neighborhood paves the way for new construction of McMansions instead. This may be the case for “tree advocate” type #1 and maybe even #2, but “tree advocate” type #3 does realize this and actually prefers it. (A McMansion in this case is a large detached single-family home that takes up nearly the entire lot except for a small lawn, has a gigantic driveway, destroys almost all existing trees on the lot, only houses one wealthy family and their multiple cars, sells for millions of dollars, and causes enormous amounts of carbon emissions by way of its excessive heating/cooling needs, induced car dependence, and high embodied energy. Here is but one random example for sale right now.)

What should pro-housing tree advocates do now?

It’s important for pro-housing tree advocates to understand which type of anti-housing “tree advocate” they are dealing with if they want to change their mind. If it’s type #1, clear and concise information will help. For types #2 and #3, however, no amount of education will move the needle. Instead, we need to make it socially unacceptable to care only about a handful of “old” trees in our neighborhood over housing our existing neighbors, welcoming new ones, fighting climate change, saving many more old trees elsewhere, growing and nurturing the next generation of plants in our urban ecosystem, and building a livable and just city free from the constraints of expensive and harmful car dependence.

We also need to update our building codes and turn extra parking spots into trees, so that it’s even easier for housing and trees to coexist. Luckily, this is not difficult to do! Most importantly, however, we must decommodify housing and build social housing for everyone everywhere. Until we have done that, people will keep doing everything in their power to try to “preserve their property values” (which often account for the bulk of their wealth) and prevent construction of new homes in their neighborhood.

All the while, we must also remember that most anti-housing “tree advocates” are not “bad people.” Their motives are understandable. When we remove the bad financial incentives (and some bad building codes including excessive parking requirements), then their true good natures can shine.

So let’s get rid of unnecessary parking, plant more trees and native vegetation, push for green social housing all over the city, and happily watch the daffodils bloom every spring with our fellow tree advocates and favorite neighbors, old and new. (I am happy to report that the daffodils we planted last winter did successfully bloom this spring for the first time; the kids jumped up and down when I pointed them out, pumping their fists with joy!)