That’s the council where it’s the other way around. No verge gardens but there’s a residents’ group that is allowed to plant street trees. Do you know the GUST group? They’d seem like the place to start with working with council on getting a verge policy. https://www.facebook.com/GUSTGrowUrbanShadeTrees?mibextid=LQQJ4d
They could be a good ally in working towards a policy as they already have a relationship with the council - or some of the people within council.
Judy in Bairnsdale is working with East Gippsland Council on getting a verge policy. It could be worth you connecting with her and following her progress. https://jjclarke135.substack.com
always happy to tell of the group's progress here in East Gippsland. See the substack as Gayle has listed aboveor the Facebook page: Verge Gardens of East Gippsland.
This 'tree refusal' on public land is partly the fault of councils. Mostly of course the fault of the tree refusers, who clearly do not care enough to educate themselves about heat and trees. Astonishingly, some of these people even have children, yet do not care about the future being so hot you cannot be outside in middle of day. Enforce the actual rules about a) the verge is public property, it is not your parking lot. Force people to park on the carcinogenic asphalt because that will reduce radiant heat by shading some of the carcinogenic asphalt and as all studies have proven - will increase safety by slowing down traffic b) heavy fines that actually hurt for vandalising public property (trees). So many times see articles about councils wanting to 'go gently' and not fine people for killing trees. But if you park your lump of metal (vehicle) 5 centimetres into the wrong place, they will fine you faster lightning. You never hear of them 'going gently' and not imposing fines for anything else!!! Cars are given far more priority by councils, than trees are. That is what needs to change. We have deliberately created a society where leaves falling on the ground is a 'horrific' situation , where 1950s overwatered, over manicured gardens are applauded and anyone who does not have this 1950s NEAT and CONTROLLED is considered to be nuisance, a nutcase and responsible for 'loss of value' of the 1950s ultra barren patches of burnt lawn next door. Councils also continue to plant monoculture avenues of the same tree in one street, which is stupid of course for disease management. It also reinforces the message that 1950s ultra barren ultra controlled gardens are the goal.
Within councils there will be people with the full range of views on this - and, of course, the councillors who want to get re-elected will be different to the council officers.
And yes, cars are given more priority by just about everyone which is why we have to address it as a systemic and cultural issue.
Moving the general public (and voters) attitudes is what we need to do if we want change. That will only happen if we stop shouting at each other and start having better conversations. That's what Shady Lanes is all about.
Agree with the 'not shouting' but why do they fine you for a car parked 10cm over a line...they are fast as lightning with that. But then don't fine people for poisoning or damaging trees. It is hypocrisy. Perhaps they should try to stop people parking incorrectly by not fining them and 'going gently' instead, just spending more and more money on 'educating' people to not park in the wrong place. Sorry, this is hypocrisy. Fine people for tree damage and make it big enough fine - that will change behaviour quick smart. That is exactly why there are parking fines - because endless amounts of public money spent on 'education' does not work. It won't with trees, either.
Different departments, I suspect. Councils tend to be fairly siloed organisations. Allocation of budgets is a good example with so much being spent on roads compared to footpaths and trees.
I was pleased to see a council (Sunshine Coast, I think) leave the dead trees standing after some residents allegedly poisoned trees to get better ocean views.
Surburban and rural town CBDs ought to be careful free.
Many suburban streets have tons of space for planting shrubs, trees, ground covers. And even micro urban forests, some as small as 12 sq metres, with climbers, groundcovers etc all local natives.
Another idea...in WA the roads can easily be mistaken for airport runways because they are sooooo wide . Even quiet side streets are 8 to 11 metres wide. With very few trees on the verges. So, why not make it a law that all carcinogenic asphalt must be in shade? Asphalt emits carcinogens / VOCs at all times. The rate of emission increases 300% when lit by sunlight. Asphalt absorbs heat and re radiates it back for 2 hours after sunset. The maintenance costs of asphalt in total shade are HALF that of asphalt in sunlight. Roads in shade reduce petrol consumption - your car is cooler so you don't have to crank up the AC. Sunlight blinding you at sunrise and sunset cause car impacts = $$ to society. Make it a law that all carparks and all roads must be in shade, where possible. (most side streets and most car parks can be in shade if we just change these laws). Asphalt is killing us. When catalytic converters were applied to vehicles in the US, millions were still presenting with chest cancers which were thought to have been caused by tail pipe emissions. Turns out, it is the roads emitting the carcinogens - the actual asphalt which we humans keep on pouring everywhere.
There are a lot of people who will agree with you - especially those working in fields of urban heat islands, or skin cancer. But they are currently a minority.
We know what we need to do. The question is "how do we make it happen?"
There are tree advocacy groups in WA. Are you in contact with them?
Thank you yes - one of the founding members and an Administrator for one of the first tree canopy groups. Agree with your points. I was simply responding to your post which only blamed private individuals for killing trees. There are instances where the perpetrator is known by councils decide to have a 'go gently' process and choose to use even more of taxpayer's money in 'education' rather than just fine the person for breaking the law. Yet they do not do this when a car is parked incorrectly - they don't spend taxpayer's money on 'education' regarding car parking. It is outright hypocrisy.
I tend to concentrate on residents’ attitudes in the newsletters because that is the main thing we can change now.
Within councils there will also be individuals with varying attitudes, and there will be people in various departments working within for change. If anything, that’s a harder task than we have with residents. That’s why finding allies and cross-sector collaborations are so important.
That said, we can also influence councils by how we vote and the conversations we have that influence how other people vote. We need the people who set the organisation’s priorities and budgets to put nature, sustainability, and greening our cities to tackle urban heat much higher on the list. They’ll do that when they think the votes are there - which brings us back to bringing more residents on board.
Great article that dives into the complexity of contested place based decision making.
My own verge garden uses extensive natives from kangaroo paw to Xanthorrhoea, bottle trees, banksia, and leptospermum.
Interestingly it has attracted significant support from the local community and a complaint. The complaint being nonspecific in nature and somewhat surprising given other comments. Appears to suggest to me that there’s a status quo (the street before the garden) that when changed is challenging for some people to accept.
I think it’s difficult for councils to action verge gardens themselves other than to provide support and guidelines. Questions of plant choice, change to previous personal use, maintenance, safety, dispute management, sense of ownership, consistency between gardens etc.
To me the secret lies in cultural change, understanding benefits, imagination, respect, vision, nature based integration for our children, town planning, and civic mindedness that matter.
People still worry about the effect of tree roots on their pavement s and houses. We need a selection of appropriate street trees which will:
- not affect built structures
- are wind firm
- do not drop too much debris
- are drought tolerant
- are EXTREME heat resistant
and for rural/urban verges
- fire resistant.
Our local council is still recommending exotics such as oaks, ginkos and just one native, Brachyciton poplneus, for the current tree planting project in one of the local streets. Interestingly, the Brachyciton meets all the above criteria ( perhaps with the exception of the nuts it drops). SGA has a great planting list for Wellington and East Gippsland Shires as do the Landcare groups in their pamphlet 'Fire wise Garden Design'.
I have a wild verge; unfortunately my council planted street trees (2) on my verge without my input and I have ended up with flowering plums. A ridiculous waste and I had high hopes they wouldn't survive so that I could replace with a local natives. Sadly, they live.
My one flowering plum is very unhealthy. I pruned all thecdesd wood off. It has lichen growing on some branches.. nice. But it us not pretty. Might cut it down and plant small native, fire resistant plants. Especially as this prunus is the only one left in my street.
Every tree needs a family of smaller plants to help it survive and thrive. No lawn mowing. More bees to pollinate your veggies and fruit tree.
Looks great.
Best all round solution.
Yes, when people want to plant food on the verge, I remind them that the native gardens on the verge will help by creating pollinator corridors.
I’m desperately keen to have verge trees and a garden there for biodiversity, heat management etc but our CC council does not have a verge plan.
Which council?
Central Coast NSW
That’s the council where it’s the other way around. No verge gardens but there’s a residents’ group that is allowed to plant street trees. Do you know the GUST group? They’d seem like the place to start with working with council on getting a verge policy. https://www.facebook.com/GUSTGrowUrbanShadeTrees?mibextid=LQQJ4d
GUST are only working on the Peninsula at present near Woy Woy… I follow them as I am keen for local development in my area…
They could be a good ally in working towards a policy as they already have a relationship with the council - or some of the people within council.
Judy in Bairnsdale is working with East Gippsland Council on getting a verge policy. It could be worth you connecting with her and following her progress. https://jjclarke135.substack.com
Brilliant: thank you for your support and sharing this resource. I am newly retired so in the new financial year I will be ready to tackle a project.
always happy to tell of the group's progress here in East Gippsland. See the substack as Gayle has listed aboveor the Facebook page: Verge Gardens of East Gippsland.
This 'tree refusal' on public land is partly the fault of councils. Mostly of course the fault of the tree refusers, who clearly do not care enough to educate themselves about heat and trees. Astonishingly, some of these people even have children, yet do not care about the future being so hot you cannot be outside in middle of day. Enforce the actual rules about a) the verge is public property, it is not your parking lot. Force people to park on the carcinogenic asphalt because that will reduce radiant heat by shading some of the carcinogenic asphalt and as all studies have proven - will increase safety by slowing down traffic b) heavy fines that actually hurt for vandalising public property (trees). So many times see articles about councils wanting to 'go gently' and not fine people for killing trees. But if you park your lump of metal (vehicle) 5 centimetres into the wrong place, they will fine you faster lightning. You never hear of them 'going gently' and not imposing fines for anything else!!! Cars are given far more priority by councils, than trees are. That is what needs to change. We have deliberately created a society where leaves falling on the ground is a 'horrific' situation , where 1950s overwatered, over manicured gardens are applauded and anyone who does not have this 1950s NEAT and CONTROLLED is considered to be nuisance, a nutcase and responsible for 'loss of value' of the 1950s ultra barren patches of burnt lawn next door. Councils also continue to plant monoculture avenues of the same tree in one street, which is stupid of course for disease management. It also reinforces the message that 1950s ultra barren ultra controlled gardens are the goal.
Within councils there will be people with the full range of views on this - and, of course, the councillors who want to get re-elected will be different to the council officers.
And yes, cars are given more priority by just about everyone which is why we have to address it as a systemic and cultural issue.
Moving the general public (and voters) attitudes is what we need to do if we want change. That will only happen if we stop shouting at each other and start having better conversations. That's what Shady Lanes is all about.
Agree with the 'not shouting' but why do they fine you for a car parked 10cm over a line...they are fast as lightning with that. But then don't fine people for poisoning or damaging trees. It is hypocrisy. Perhaps they should try to stop people parking incorrectly by not fining them and 'going gently' instead, just spending more and more money on 'educating' people to not park in the wrong place. Sorry, this is hypocrisy. Fine people for tree damage and make it big enough fine - that will change behaviour quick smart. That is exactly why there are parking fines - because endless amounts of public money spent on 'education' does not work. It won't with trees, either.
Different departments, I suspect. Councils tend to be fairly siloed organisations. Allocation of budgets is a good example with so much being spent on roads compared to footpaths and trees.
I was pleased to see a council (Sunshine Coast, I think) leave the dead trees standing after some residents allegedly poisoned trees to get better ocean views.
Surburban and rural town CBDs ought to be careful free.
Many suburban streets have tons of space for planting shrubs, trees, ground covers. And even micro urban forests, some as small as 12 sq metres, with climbers, groundcovers etc all local natives.
Another idea...in WA the roads can easily be mistaken for airport runways because they are sooooo wide . Even quiet side streets are 8 to 11 metres wide. With very few trees on the verges. So, why not make it a law that all carcinogenic asphalt must be in shade? Asphalt emits carcinogens / VOCs at all times. The rate of emission increases 300% when lit by sunlight. Asphalt absorbs heat and re radiates it back for 2 hours after sunset. The maintenance costs of asphalt in total shade are HALF that of asphalt in sunlight. Roads in shade reduce petrol consumption - your car is cooler so you don't have to crank up the AC. Sunlight blinding you at sunrise and sunset cause car impacts = $$ to society. Make it a law that all carparks and all roads must be in shade, where possible. (most side streets and most car parks can be in shade if we just change these laws). Asphalt is killing us. When catalytic converters were applied to vehicles in the US, millions were still presenting with chest cancers which were thought to have been caused by tail pipe emissions. Turns out, it is the roads emitting the carcinogens - the actual asphalt which we humans keep on pouring everywhere.
There are a lot of people who will agree with you - especially those working in fields of urban heat islands, or skin cancer. But they are currently a minority.
We know what we need to do. The question is "how do we make it happen?"
There are tree advocacy groups in WA. Are you in contact with them?
https://watca.org.au
Thank you yes - one of the founding members and an Administrator for one of the first tree canopy groups. Agree with your points. I was simply responding to your post which only blamed private individuals for killing trees. There are instances where the perpetrator is known by councils decide to have a 'go gently' process and choose to use even more of taxpayer's money in 'education' rather than just fine the person for breaking the law. Yet they do not do this when a car is parked incorrectly - they don't spend taxpayer's money on 'education' regarding car parking. It is outright hypocrisy.
I tend to concentrate on residents’ attitudes in the newsletters because that is the main thing we can change now.
Within councils there will also be individuals with varying attitudes, and there will be people in various departments working within for change. If anything, that’s a harder task than we have with residents. That’s why finding allies and cross-sector collaborations are so important.
That said, we can also influence councils by how we vote and the conversations we have that influence how other people vote. We need the people who set the organisation’s priorities and budgets to put nature, sustainability, and greening our cities to tackle urban heat much higher on the list. They’ll do that when they think the votes are there - which brings us back to bringing more residents on board.
Helly, would like some references I can use to prove your excellent points.
???
Great article that dives into the complexity of contested place based decision making.
My own verge garden uses extensive natives from kangaroo paw to Xanthorrhoea, bottle trees, banksia, and leptospermum.
Interestingly it has attracted significant support from the local community and a complaint. The complaint being nonspecific in nature and somewhat surprising given other comments. Appears to suggest to me that there’s a status quo (the street before the garden) that when changed is challenging for some people to accept.
I think it’s difficult for councils to action verge gardens themselves other than to provide support and guidelines. Questions of plant choice, change to previous personal use, maintenance, safety, dispute management, sense of ownership, consistency between gardens etc.
To me the secret lies in cultural change, understanding benefits, imagination, respect, vision, nature based integration for our children, town planning, and civic mindedness that matter.
People still worry about the effect of tree roots on their pavement s and houses. We need a selection of appropriate street trees which will:
- not affect built structures
- are wind firm
- do not drop too much debris
- are drought tolerant
- are EXTREME heat resistant
and for rural/urban verges
- fire resistant.
Our local council is still recommending exotics such as oaks, ginkos and just one native, Brachyciton poplneus, for the current tree planting project in one of the local streets. Interestingly, the Brachyciton meets all the above criteria ( perhaps with the exception of the nuts it drops). SGA has a great planting list for Wellington and East Gippsland Shires as do the Landcare groups in their pamphlet 'Fire wise Garden Design'.
I have a wild verge; unfortunately my council planted street trees (2) on my verge without my input and I have ended up with flowering plums. A ridiculous waste and I had high hopes they wouldn't survive so that I could replace with a local natives. Sadly, they live.
Can you think of reasons they might have chosen that species? How do they fit with the overall streetscape?
My one flowering plum is very unhealthy. I pruned all thecdesd wood off. It has lichen growing on some branches.. nice. But it us not pretty. Might cut it down and plant small native, fire resistant plants. Especially as this prunus is the only one left in my street.