Dear Governor Tina Kotek,

Oregon’s cities are in a climate crisis, with our most vulnerable residents already dying from scorching heat. Urban tree canopy is a key factor in keeping urban neighborhoods cooler, but its inequitable distribution within cities including Portland is magnifying climate impacts on historically marginalized communities. That is why I strongly object to the recent proposal from the Housing Production Advisory Council (HPAC) to restrict local governments from maintaining their urban forest canopy while increasing housing density.

Instead of creatively engaging the challenge of maintaining tree cover while increasing housing density, HPAC suggests, in effect, that cities should be stripped of their power to implement existing tree codes, and that all trees could be removed without any restrictions or fees. This is a greenlight for developers to clear-cut lots without even paying for replacements the city could plant elsewhere. As a result, the extensive growth that Portland anticipates over the next decades would exacerbate the declines in tree canopy and increase the heat-related illnesses and deaths we’re already experiencing.

I firmly support building new, affordable housing, and that affordable housing should be healthy housing. Housing that removes existing trees and provides no space for trees is not healthy. U.S. Forest Service research has found direct links between human health and nearby canopy and, as we’ve noted, these benefits will become ever more important in our increasingly hot cities. Indeed it is critical to protect all green infrastructure on the urban landscape: trees, wetlands, environmental zones, the Willamette River Greenway, and more.

Housing and green infrastructure are not mutually exclusive and should not be pitted against one another. Both are necessary. It would be far more innovative and equitable for your council to be charged with meeting goals for housing, public health, and climate justice simultaneously. With smarter, upfront, climate-centric designs that integrate housing and space for trees, we can have healthier residents and be better climate-prepared.

The HPAC proposal seems designed with one goal in mind—to facilitate developers’ ability to build more, profitable, though not necessarily better or affordable, housing at all costs and at the expense of community health, climate and tree canopy equity, environment, livability, and other stated Oregon goals.

Finally, it appears that no one representing these other crucial state interests and goals sits on HPAC. This stymies truly integrative planning that would result in better, healthier outcomes for Oregon residents. Not only do I urge you to reject this HPAC proposal, I also urge you to include at least one or more urban forest and climate justice representatives on your advisory council. We look forward to hearing from you about this important issue as soon as possible.