Atlanta exempts Beltline, other projects from city's tree protection ordinance
The Atlanta City Council has voted to temporarily exempt the Beltline and other major infrastructure projects from the city's tree ordinance.
Officials say the tree ordinance slows or obstructs infrastructure projects - causing delays and higher development costs without added public benefit.
The exemption will remain in effect until March 17, 2026, or until the Atlanta City Council approves another revised Tree Protection Ordinance.
ATLANTA - The Atlanta City Council has voted to temporarily exempt the Beltline and other infrastructure projects from the city's tree ordinance.
After a debate at Monday's meeting, the council members voted unanimously to approve the exemption. Two council members, Andrea Boone and Liliana Bakhtiari, did not vote.
The backstory
The tree ordinance is in place to protect the city's tree canopy and regulates what both public and private groups and individuals can do to the "City in a Forest's" foliage.
The most recent update to the ordinance was in late 2023, when the city made changes to increase canopy cover and support preservation of the plants.
The city's goal is to have its tree canopy covering 50% of its land area, but a 2024 report from Rough Draft showed the number has dropped to a tad more than 46%.
While advocates for the ordinance point to its positive impact on energy costs and air quality, officials say the restrictions slow or obstruct infrastructure projects - causing delays and higher development costs without added public benefit.
What we know
City council members say the exemption will allow the city to clear a backlog of projects that have been delayed by the ordinance.
The measure would make public infrastructure projects involving the Atlanta Beltline and the Path Foundation exempt. Also included would be projects administered by the City of Atlanta's Department of Watershed Management (DWM), Department of Transportation (ATLDOT), and Department of Enterprise Assets Management (DEAM).
Despite the exemption, the new measure would ask the city to plant trees on project sites "to the maximum extent feasible."
Departments given the exemption will be asked to submit annual reports on how their ongoing infrastructure projects affect the canopy and what they are doing to mitigate the reduction.
What's next
The exemption will remain in effect until March 17, 2026, or until the Atlanta City Council approves another revised Tree Protection Ordinance.
The Source
Information for this story came from the Tree Protection Ordinance, the Atlanta City Council's motion, and a report from Rough Draft.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
15 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Top Democrats in Georgia governor's race each raise $1.1M
ATLANTA (AP) — The two leading Democrats running for Georgia governor in 2026 each say they have collected $1.1 million in early fundraising. State Sen. Jason Esteves announced on Tuesday that he had raised more than $1.1 million, and former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms announced a similar total on Wednesday. Bottoms said she loaned her campaign $200,000 and collected $900,000 from donors, while Esteves said he made a much smaller donation to his campaign with the rest coming from donors. The reporting period covers Feb. 1 through June 30. Neither campaign had filed an official report with the state Ethics Commission by Thursday. Reports aren't due until next week. The totals are less than the $2.2 million that Attorney General Chris Carr , the only major Republican candidate who has declared so far, raised last year . But it's more than Democrats have raised this early on in recent years. Stacey Abrams didn't officially announce for governor until December 2021, although she went on to outraise Republican Brian Kemp even as she lost to the incumbent in 2022. Before the 2018 election, Abrams had raised $480,000 at this point in 2017, while fellow Democrat Stacey Evans had raised $400,000. Like Abrams in the 2022 election, Democrat Jason Carter didn't announce his unsuccessful 2014 bid until November 2013. No Democrat has won a governor's race in Georgia since Roy Barnes in 1998. Bottoms said she had nearly 7,100 donors. Her campaign manager, Ned Miller, said in a statement that the one-term Atlanta mayor has 'major advantages in name ID and popularity that put Mayor Bottoms in a strong position to win the governor's race in 2026.' Esteves is less well-known statewide but has been rolling up endorsements, including from some labor unions, groups of state legislators, Atlanta City Council members and Atlanta school board members. Esteves was an Atlanta school board member before he was elected to the state Senate. Esteves said 85% of his donations came from inside Georgia. 'Georgians are ready for a new generation of leadership,' Esteves' campaign manager Meg Scribner said in a statement. Among other Democrats running for governor, state Rep. Derrick Jackson hadn't filed a report as of Thursday. Atlanta pastor Olu Brown reported raising almost $19,000 and having $16,000 on hand. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Axios
a day ago
- Axios
Trump's asylum ban at U.S.-Mexico border "unlawful," judge rules
President Trump's asylum ban at the U.S.-Mexico border enacted in an emergency immigration proclamation on his first day in office is "unlawful," a federal judge ruled Wednesday. Why it matters: Although U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss postponed his order from taking effect for 14 days to allow for appeal, the processing of asylum claims at the border would resume immediately if the ruling is not overturned. Trump administration officials have already said they'll appeal Moss' ruling that found the president exceeded his authority in a Jan. 20 proclamation that denied asylum protections at the border. The case seems likely headed for the Supreme Court, which last week in a majority ruling imposed new limits on lower courts' abilities to freeze federal policies. Driving the news: The proclamation that's titled "Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion" states the Immigration and Nationality Act "provides the President with certain emergency tools" that have enabled Trump's action. Immigration groups including the American Civil Liberties Union and multiple people seeking asylum filed a class action lawsuit in February challenging the legality of the proclamation, calling the "invasion" declaration unlawful and false. "[N]othing in the INA or the Constitution grants the President or his delegees the sweeping authority asserted in the Proclamation and implementing guidance," Moss wrote. "An appeal to necessity cannot fill that void." The Constitution doesn't give a president authority to "adopt an alternative immigration system, which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted and the regulations that the responsible agencies have promulgated," according to the Obama-appointed D.C. judge. Between the lines: The attempted asylum changes are among many immigration enforcement reforms the Trump administration is trying to make via executive order or rule changes without going to Congress. The Trump administration issued a new rule in January that dramatically expands expedited removal to immigrants who cannot prove they have been continuously living in the U.S. for over two years. That rule is facing a legal challenge from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The Trump administration also is trying to make immigrants previously granted humanitarian parole eligible for expedited removal, and that's also facing a legal challenge. What they're saying: ACLU of Texas legal director Adriana Piñon said in a statement Moss' rejection of the Trump administration's "efforts to upend our asylum system" was "a key ruling" for the U.S. "This attempt to completely shut down the border is an attack on the fundamental and longstanding right to seek safety in the U.S. from violence and persecution." Keren Zwick, director of litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center, which also brought the suit, said in a statement that no president "has the authority to unilaterally block people who come to our border seeking safety." The other side: "A local district court judge has no authority to stop President Trump and the United States from securing our border from the flood of aliens trying to enter illegally," said Abigail Jackson, a spokesperson for the White House. "This is an attack on our Constitution, the laws Congress enacted, and our national sovereignty," she said of the ruling. "We expect to be vindicated on appeal." White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller on X claimed the order was trying to "circumvent" last week's Supreme Court ruling and that it declared undocumented immigrants as "a protected global 'class' entitled to admission into the United States."
UPI
a day ago
- UPI
Trump's efforts to expel asylum seekers at the border blocked by judge
Asylum seekers stand in line for food, water, blankets and clothing near the border wall in Jacumba, California on Saturday, May 13, 2023. The migrant camp at the US-Mexican border is about 60 miles from San Diego. File photo by Ariana Dreshler/UPI | License Photo July 2 (UPI) -- A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the administration of President Donald Trump to stop implementing a proclamation to expel asylum seekers at the border that he had signed shortly after beginning his second term. Trump had signed the proclamation, titled "Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion," on January 20, his first day in office. It invoked emergency presidential powers to expel migrants before allowing them to apply for asylum. A coalition of immigrants and immigrant rights groups then sued the administration in February. U.S. District Court Judge Randolph Moss has now granted the plaintiffs a partial summary judgment, finding that Trump's proclamation and implementation guidance from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. In his proclamation, Trump had said that the screenings of asylum seekers under the INA -- enacted by Congress -- can be "wholly ineffective" but that the law grants the president "certain emergency tools" if he were to find that the entry of any class of immigrants would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. "The court recognizes that the Executive Branch faces enormous challenges in preventing and deterring unlawful entry into the United States and in adjudicating the overwhelming backlog of asylum claims of those who have entered the country," Moss wrote. But he added that the Immigration and Nationality Act "provides the sole and exclusive means for removing people already present in the country." But Moss found that the INA "provides the sole and exclusive means for removing people already present in the country" and that the government lacked the statutory or constitutional authority to adopt an "alternative immigration system" to the one outlined by Congress. He stayed his ruling for 14 days in anticipation of a likely appeal from the Trump administration, and deferred judgment on whether the government should grant relief to plaintiffs who are no longer in the United States and other aspects of the judge's ruling also did not include an injunction at this stage and ordered the parties to submit a joint status report proposing a briefing schedule on unresolved issues. It comes after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week in the case of Trump v. CASA Inc., a landmark ruling that determined that lower courts generally lack authority to issue "nationwide" or "universal" injunctions unless they are essential to fully remedy the specific plaintiffs' harms. While an injunction has not yet been granted in this case, officials in the Trump administration have criticized Moss as a "rogue" judge seeking to "circumvent" the Supreme Court. "To try to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling on nationwide injunctions a Marxist judge has declared that all potential future illegal aliens on foreign soil (e.g. a large portion of planet Earth) are part of a protected global 'class' entitled to admission into the United States," Stephen Miller posted on social media. Gene Hamilton, the former deputy White House counsel, called the judge's decision "judicial insurrection," while Attorney General Pamela Bondi said that the Justice Department would fight the "unconstitutional power grab.
