Tree Hugger: The Fight for Mt. Vernon's Parks

A three-hour hearing on Tuesday, February 8th, 2011, put a partial end to the six-month controversy brewing over the Mt. Vernon Place Conservancy's Plan to "renovate" Mt. Vernon Place Park.  The conservancy's 18.5-million-dollar plan has drawn public outcry, not only for its colossal budget, but also for the method it calls for to "restore" the parks.

At a December hearing, the conservancy was given approval to move forward with their restoration plans regarding the Washington Monument. This decision was presumably based on numerous reports that the statue was structurally unsound. The goal is to completely refurbish the monument in time for its 200th Anniversary in 2015.

Interesting as that may be, the much-awaited verdict lay with the far more controversial aim to re-erect everything from: sidewalks, road width, and most notably, the trees. Last year the conservancy "announced" that they wished to to remove 117 to 118 trees and replant them with a mature, same-species population.

Instantaneously, the ringing question was, "Why?"

Many of the diverse and beloved trees are healthy. What is the point in replacing them?  Has the conservancy considered environmental impacts? The conservancy avowed their environmentally friendly dictums: they would replace as many or more trees as there are currently residing, the trees would be replaced with mature trees in order to supply the same environmental benefits as those at present, and in the removal and replanting process they would be extracting contaminated soil.

Save the Tree Alliance was created by concerned Mt. Vernon residents in order to bring much-needed attention to this issue and fight for concrete changes to (or utter dismisal of) the conservancy's plan.

What the conservancy's plan calls "revitalizing," others would call "demolishing," and still others would simply call "wasting needless funds," even as the converancy claims that the parks are in dire need of repair. The converacy's members have harkened to previous city restoration plans, numerously referring to the build-out of the Inner Harbor. They have cited the potential for the Mt. Vernon's reconstruction to be aligned with the same economic renewal.  

The conservancy has declared the parks, sidewalks, and roads unsafe, at the same time implying that by altering the landscape, they can eradicate crime.  Others argue that crime as a city-wide problem is far from the direst of problems currently facing Mt.Vernon. In the plans, accessibility considerations are put into motion, which is an admirable step. It is, however, unclear if the conservancy's plans will actually help the differently-abled gain easier access to the parks. Notably, the reasoning for removing and replacing all the trees, even the healthy ones, is artistically inspired by the Parisian park model.

Artistic sensibilities are too subjective to debate (though numerous opinions are now on public record). After all, beauty is oft-stated as in the eye of the beholder. And no one, on either side of the referred aisle, has been making the claim that the adored parks shouldn't be cared for or about. The differences in opinion, however, from an overhaul versus tending, differ in millions of dollars (the opposition's regular source of outrage). While the city currently cuts back on public funds for necessities, such as education, and when our drug and crime statistics are through the roof and rapidly rising, why would we spend such extensive public funds on uprooting and replanting healthy trees (as well as their many other murkily-deduced propositions)?

On Tuesday, the Department of Planning's small room was filled to capacity with supporters and opposers. The conservancy and the Save the Trees Alliance were each given an estimated twenty minutes to have various speakers summarize their considerations and concerns for the plan.  A common refrain was that there weren't necessarily any "bad guys" in this fight. Merely citizens with very contrasting mindsets, who were having a formidable time compromising.

After the case's December hearing, CHAP (Baltimore's Commission for Historical and Architectural Preservation) stated that the conservancy and the public needed to convene and strive for much needed middle-ground. An acknowledged win for the Save the Trees Alliance was the commission's quick recognition that the conservancy had exerted little-to-no effort towards negotiating with the public. The conservancy's one-noted concession was that they agreed to not uproot four trees that are commonly welcomed as prized. Nevertheless, they refused to budge on the other 114 trees, regardless of the trees' health. The Save the Trees Alliance willingly agreed that the trees that are dead or dying should be replaced. Yet, the belief is that there is no cause or public desire to remove any beyond such total.

One of the strongest tools in the conservancy's toolbelt is the support of the park's surrounding respected institutions, such as The Walters Art Museum, the Peabody Institute, and the Mount Vernon Place United Methodist Church. Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake was not in attendance. She has, however, also stated her firm support of the plan (as has the Engineer's Club of Baltimore).

At the hearing and in an Op-Ed to The Baltimore Sun, the public didn't shy away from questioning these connections and the conservancy's powerful public sway. Regardless of the reality that the conservancy did little to ever publicize their plans, largely operating behind closed doors, the Save the Trees Alliance managed to obtain over 2,200 signatures in opposition. These signatures went on public record, as did every speech of the day.

Lasting from 1:30-4:30 pm, the initially sardine-cramped crowd dwindled as the conversation raged onward. After each side's twenty minutes were up, the floor was opened for a small amount of attendees to lend their voices. The commission then commenced into decision-led discussion. CHAP mostly seemed optimistic in regard to the conservancy's plan. Nonetheless, most agreed that the conservancy could have done much better towards working with the public and publicizing their undertakings and propositions.

Larry Gibson was, if not the sole, the strongest supporter of the opposition. Clearly touting his opinions on the clumsily laid plans, he drew the day's only round of applause when he stated, after a fiery mini-speech, that he would oppose the plan in its current form.

The public still waits for the commission's published decision.  After witnessing the hearing and listening to the vote, what appears to have been deduced is that CHAP has enforced a compromise that had, until then, been unwillingly undertaken. The conservancy was given allowance to proceed with forming their plans. Yet,  each phase of their plan must now come before CHAP and be approved before it is put into effect. Also, all funding sources must be made transparent to the commission. There must be a public-private partnership between the conservancy and The Save the Trees Alliance/the public. It was stated that these two bodies must have serious dialogue and jointly reassess intentions.

The new plans are also to subsume the numerous December hearing's staff recommendations. Lastly, in terms of the controversial trees, it was agreed that, with the exception of the untouchable Magnolias, the conservancy could move forward with replacing the trees in the North and South Parks. After analyzation, it appears that this is where the largest portion of dead and dying trees are gathered. The commission has forbid any removal of East and West Park trees at this time, believing that many trees in these sections are healthy and vital.

In summation, both sides seemed tentatively optimistic. The Save the Trees Alliance seem pleased that some trees were saved, for the time being, and that the conservancy cannot completely move forward without public dialogue and commission approval. The Mt. Vernon Place Conservancy seem pleased that their plan was largely given the green light for enaction.

Surprisingly and promisingly, the conversation has been encouraged not to end but rather, hopefully, to begin.