A developer who wants to construct industrial buildings on the outskirts of Elgin figures he has spent about $100,000 trying to preserve as many trees on his property as possible, but residents are fuming that he needs to do more.
In Geneva, the fate of several century-old oaks has generated similar controversy. And in Indian Head Park, officials have updated an ordinance designed to spare trees.
When it comes to stirring up the public, it’s hard to beat threats to trees. Across the Chicago area, residents frequently square off with developers and politicians over the buzz saw issue.
“Hardly a week goes by where you don’t see something about tree preservation in the news,” said Chuck Stewart, president of Urban Forestry Management of Fox River Grove. “Just about every metropolitan area has wrestled with this.”
The controversies involve such issues as respect for private property, and economic growth versus the desire for green space and beauty.
“When you go into an area where people are used to seeing trees and they don’t want that to change, those are among the hardest issues,” Elgin Mayor Ed Schock said.
Experts say such conflicts stem from reasons ranging from concern for aesthetics to the pragmatic.
Trees provide shade, oxygen and a filter for pollution. By soaking up water, they help minimize flooding. They serve as a habitat for birds, squirrels and other wildlife.
Moreover, trees symbolize a community’s sense of self-identity.
“The trees really make Indian Head Park what it is,” Mayor Richard Pellegrino said. “Next to our citizenry, our trees are our greatest resource.”
Developers usually realize people pay more for wooded properties and often conclude it’s in their interest to save as many trees as possible.
They also understand that running afoul of city foresters or planners can lead to delays that can hurt their bottom line, even jeopardize the project.
Larry King, city forester of Highland Park, said developers usually want to work with him. But, he said, “If you think you can walk in here and just start breaking things without heeding the ordinance, watch out.”
Attorney Joseph Gottemoller represents a developer whose Crystal Lake housing project is stalled over tree-preservation concerns. Gottemoller admitted that if he does something the community dislikes, it will make his client’s life miserable.
“He might get to build it, but they’ll fight him every step of the way,” he said.
By contrast, some developers accuse residents of “not in my backyard” attitudes. They say they are incorrectly portrayed as greedy because residents don’t realize how city regulations, topography and other factors can interfere with tree preservation.
Developers also argue that they should have broad discretion over their land.
“In the end it’s still private property,” said Jack Seymour, executive director of the Attainable Housing Alliance, formerly the Homebuilders Association of Greater Chicago.
Despite incentives for developers to compromise, debates still emerge and tend to take on two forms.
In some established, well-developed suburbs, there are concerns that trees might be destroyed as people raze old homes to build larger ones.
The Naperville City Council recently decided to research whether it should launch a public education campaign about tree preservation. It chose not to mandate that property owners get permission before reaching for their chain saws.
In new suburbs, however, residents often fret over developments slated for heavily wooded property.
“I think that people in fast-developing areas are very afraid they are losing the open quality of life that attracted them there,” said Jack Darin, director of the Illinois chapter of the Sierra Club.
In Geneva, Theresa Ellis helped form Citizens for Trees after learning that a downtown retail-residential development could sacrifice five historic oak trees for parking spaces.
“It’s got its own momentum somehow,” she said. “You talk about cutting down trees for a parking lot, and it hits a nerve with everybody.”
City Administrator Phil Page called the issue difficult because the development needs to offer a certain amount of parking to support itself. The city hopes to save two or three of the trees, he said.
On the outskirts of Elgin, developers hope to construct industrial buildings on 20 acres where the previous owner had agreed to retain a strip of trees separating the land from homes to the north and west.
Through a 20-year-old snafu, however, the agreement was never officially recorded. Developer Rich Turasky said he was unaware of it when he researched the purchase.
Now Turasky is trying to compromise with the city and has offered to save about 70 percent of the trees.
“I think they should appreciate that somebody would go to as great lengths as we did,” he said.
Residents such as Jeff Beck have petitioned the council, arguing that more needs to be done.
“I look out the front window of my house and I see at least a half-dozen oak trees,” Beck said. “It took a long time for them to grow, and it’ll take an even longer time for them to grow back.”
