By Phil Crone
Executive Officer, Dallas Builders Association
As Dallas continues its rapid growth, balancing urban development with environmental preservation becomes a paramount concern. The Dallas City Council recently convened to consider crucial legislative changes concerning the city’s green spaces and urban canopy. On May 16, separate proposals were presented addressing a new Park Land Dedication Ordinance and significant revisions to Article X, which governs tree planting and conservation within the city limits. These ordinances hold profound implications for property owners, developers, and the future landscape of Dallas, with a final vote anticipated before the council’s July recess.
My engagement with Dallas’s tree ordinances, particularly Article X, spans more than a decade, tracing back to 2009 when the Dallas Builders Association initiated discussions with various stakeholders to identify potential improvements. Article X, in its current form, has consistently presented significant challenges for new development, particularly in underserved areas like South Dallas. The core principle of this ordinance is to impose fees for the removal of trees on private property. Property owners are incentivized to mitigate or eliminate these fees by proactively preserving the existing tree canopy, strategically replanting desirable species using industry best practices, and implementing other sustainable development methodologies.
While the latest draft of Article X introduces additional “carrots” – offering more incentives for tree preservation – it also unfortunately adds more “sticks,” meaning increased penalties and stricter regulations. A significant concern remains the lack of transparency surrounding critical elements, most notably the exact fee structures and how these funds are ultimately utilized. This opacity creates uncertainty for property owners and stifles proactive planning. Furthermore, a problematic inclusion in the revised ordinance is the assignment of mitigation fees to nuisance trees, such as Hackberries and thorn-ridden Mesquite trees. Although these species are subject to a lower fee rate, their pervasive presence throughout Dallas means that numerous small fees can quickly accumulate into a substantial financial burden when removal becomes necessary.
Hackberries, for instance, are notoriously ubiquitous across Dallas properties. As they mature, these trees become increasingly brittle, posing significant safety hazards during storms. Their leaves attract aphids, which excrete a sticky honeydew that coats everything beneath, eventually leading to the growth of unsightly and damaging black sooty mold. From a practical and aesthetic standpoint, Hackberries offer very few redeeming qualities for property owners. In response to this specific issue, the Dallas Builders Association has put forward a sensible proposal: allowing property owners to remove smaller, less desirable species, specifically defined as Class 3 trees within the ordinance, without incurring a fee. This measure aims to balance ecological concerns with practical property management, encouraging responsible land stewardship without imposing undue financial penalties for removing problematic vegetation.
Another crucial shortcoming of the current Article X is its failure to provide adequate credit for newly planted replacement trees, a provision now mandated by state law. House Bill 7, which took effect in December, received broad support from both the City of Dallas and the Dallas Builders Association during the most recent legislative session. Our focus in supporting HB 7 was to promote a pragmatic approach to tree preservation, emphasizing the importance of planting new trees as a superior alternative to more aggressive proposals that sought to entirely strip municipalities of their authority over tree preservation. The proposed revisions to Article X outline a process that, in most scenarios, should align with the outcomes permitted by state law. However, for complete clarity and to safeguard property owners, we advocate for the explicit inclusion of language from the state statute. This ensures that property owners are guaranteed no less favorable an outcome than that intended by the state legislature, fostering trust and predictability in regulatory compliance.
Our final, but equally critical, concerns with Article X revolve around the profound lack of transparency within its framework. This issue undermines public trust and complicates compliance for property owners and developers alike.
Foremost among these transparency issues is the shocking fact that the actual fee amounts are not published within the ordinance itself. Instead, the document makes an oblique reference to the Guide for Establishing Values of Trees and Other Plants. This specialized publication, which can be purchased for $130 on Amazon, assigns monetary values to trees based on appraisals by a national consortium of arborists. While such a guide may be useful in specific contexts, it is entirely inappropriate to make it the sole determinant of significant municipal fees. Property owners, or anyone considering an investment in Dallas real estate, should not be forced to purchase a third-party book to ascertain the financial impact of a local ordinance. The ordinance itself should be a self-contained, easily accessible resource that clearly outlines all relevant fees and regulations, allowing individuals to readily assess its impact without hidden costs or research hurdles. This lack of clear, direct information creates an unnecessary barrier and erodes confidence in the regulatory process.
Concerns about the lack of transparency regarding fees are further amplified by the revelation that Dallas currently holds over $7 million in its Reforestation Fund – funds that are demonstrably not being utilized for their intended purpose of reforestation. Instead of directing these substantial reserves towards meaningful green initiatives, the proposed ordinance revisions merely suggest allocating these funds to administrative expenditures. An ordinance that places a clear onus on property owners to “do their part” for tree preservation, yet fails to hold the City of Dallas accountable for its own commitment and efficient use of dedicated funds, is fundamentally unbalanced and cannot be supported. There are numerous reputable non-profit organizations, such as the Texas Trees Foundation, that possess the expertise and infrastructure to deploy these funds efficiently and effectively, delivering tangible results for the urban canopy. Furthermore, these unused reforestation funds could significantly contribute to achieving the city’s broader park land development and enhancement goals, addressing multiple urban planning objectives simultaneously.
Shifting focus to the Park Land Dedication ordinance, its underlying premise is that the city reserves the right to acquire a portion of private property, either through outright dedication or by extracting a fee, typically without direct compensation to the property owner. Unfortunately, public discourse surrounding this ordinance has often led to a popular misconception: that it will directly result in new parks located within a convenient ten-minute walking distance for current residents. In reality, the ordinance is primarily designed to expand and enhance the existing park system for the benefit of future residents, who are ultimately the ones who will bear the costs associated with new development. This distinction is crucial for managing public expectations and ensuring transparent policy communication.
It is important to note that the absence of a formal park land dedication ordinance has not historically caused deficiencies in Dallas’s park system. The true responsibility for any shortcomings in park development or maintenance often lies elsewhere – specifically, with the city’s operational management. Developing and maintaining high-quality parks, trails, and green spaces are inherent functions of any effective local government. Dallas already possesses an array of powerful tools to achieve this purpose, including robust revenue generated from property taxes, voter-approved bond funding, and substantial philanthropic support from private organizations and individuals. In fact, many of the city’s cherished existing parks were originally built or significantly expanded by developers voluntarily, demonstrating a long-standing commitment from the private sector. The more pressing issue facing Dallas’s parks today is often the city’s own failure to keep pace with necessary maintenance and upgrades, rather than a lack of dedicated land.
Concerns voiced by the Dallas Builders Association and other industry groups regarding certain aspects of these ordinances should not be misconstrued as opposition to parks themselves. Developers, in fact, are often at the forefront of creating and enhancing green spaces. Many of our apprehensions stem from direct experience with surrounding cities that, regrettably, have weaponized similar ordinances. These policies are frequently used to artificially inflate the cost of housing, thereby inadvertently denying opportunities for new homeownership to low and moderate-income families. This creates a significant socioeconomic barrier, contradicting the stated goals of inclusive urban development.
Some Dallas councilmembers contend that waiving or reducing park dedication fees for affordable housing projects would somehow deprive low-income individuals of access to parks. This argument fundamentally misunderstands a basic economic principle: it is impossible to construct affordable housing by simultaneously making housing less affordable through increased regulatory costs. Waiving these specific fees for affordable housing developments does not, in any way, equate to waiving parks. Dallas’s commitment to fostering affordable housing must be a shared municipal responsibility, not an unfunded mandate unilaterally imposed on property owners and developers. The city, and particularly the Mayor’s office, has demonstrated a willingness to be a collaborative partner in these vital ventures, and this partnership should extend to finding equitable funding solutions for parks without burdening affordable housing initiatives.
Our members consistently express a preference for actively building and contributing to parks directly rather than simply paying abstract fees. The ordinances should explicitly and strongly encourage this proactive approach. Whether an individual is purchasing land to construct a personal home or a developer is planning a community of 100 homes, certainty regarding the financial outlay required to complete the project is paramount. Unpredictable or opaque fees create significant barriers to investment and development.
Given that the vast majority of future development potential lies within South Dallas, both of these ordinances carry immense potential for gain or loss. With further thoughtful refinement and a commitment to transparency, these policies can indeed foster responsible development, enhance our city’s already incredible parks system, and crucially, achieve these goals without compromising the affordability of housing in Dallas. The future of our city’s green infrastructure and housing market hinges on getting these critical legislative details right.
For more detailed insights into the Dallas Builders Association’s stance, you can review our official letters to the Dallas City Council concerning the Park Land Dedication ordinance and Article X. We strongly encourage members of the real estate community to engage with this important topic and share their perspectives.
Phil Crone is the executive officer of the Dallas Builders Association. Established in 1944, the Dallas Builders Association is a prominent trade association representing all facets of the residential building industry across the Dallas Metropolitan area. Its foundational mission is to empower its members to deliver safe, affordable, and high-quality housing solutions to the residents of local communities. Discover more about their advocacy and initiatives at dallasbuilders.com.