Sure, I don't think this current iteration gets you there, though. I have nothing against everything you just described. I feel this way about Evanston Tree Law too - like I absolutely think it's important to the character of the City to protect as many trees as possible. But the rules they put in place requiring permitting if you do any…
Sure, I don't think this current iteration gets you there, though. I have nothing against everything you just described. I feel this way about Evanston Tree Law too - like I absolutely think it's important to the character of the City to protect as many trees as possible. But the rules they put in place requiring permitting if you do anything 25 feet from a tree, requiring a visit from the Evanston tree cop, etc are expensive and increase the time/costs for everyone to do anything.
I think this can be vastly simpler - forget about all the metrics and monitoring and committees and (likely non-existent) federal grants and carve outs, etc. That's just more jobs for consultants. Just say "here's the new rules, they go into effect in 10,15 and 25 years and they impact everyone, even single family homes. If you want to replace a gas boiler, you cannot do that anymore, it has to be electric. No more gas stoves as of 2032. etc" and apply to everyone.
This iteration just adds so much complexity to a simple problem and will clog everything up while Northwestern's lawyers grease the wheels
I don't disagree completely. I just think since the federal $ is still potentially on the table they should push forward. If that gets abandoned, then maybe go down that path you suggested. But there will have to be a lot of time and money by the city to come up wtih that which is why the federal dollars are important. It's not like the city has a bunch of time on their hands thanks to the disaster of EE45 and the proposed zoning changes and the horrible consultant they hired that they didn't do what they said they were going to. Evanston needs to come up with a way to actual make things happen instead of talking about it forever and paying consultants to not actually produce anything valuable. And this is coming from me, a consultant.
Also, don't get me started on the tree thing. Sure canopy coverage is good but when someone's tree is leaning over my garage and they want to take it down and the city says no, I'm honestly surprsied people haven't sued over that yet.
Sure, I don't think this current iteration gets you there, though. I have nothing against everything you just described. I feel this way about Evanston Tree Law too - like I absolutely think it's important to the character of the City to protect as many trees as possible. But the rules they put in place requiring permitting if you do anything 25 feet from a tree, requiring a visit from the Evanston tree cop, etc are expensive and increase the time/costs for everyone to do anything.
I think this can be vastly simpler - forget about all the metrics and monitoring and committees and (likely non-existent) federal grants and carve outs, etc. That's just more jobs for consultants. Just say "here's the new rules, they go into effect in 10,15 and 25 years and they impact everyone, even single family homes. If you want to replace a gas boiler, you cannot do that anymore, it has to be electric. No more gas stoves as of 2032. etc" and apply to everyone.
This iteration just adds so much complexity to a simple problem and will clog everything up while Northwestern's lawyers grease the wheels
I don't disagree completely. I just think since the federal $ is still potentially on the table they should push forward. If that gets abandoned, then maybe go down that path you suggested. But there will have to be a lot of time and money by the city to come up wtih that which is why the federal dollars are important. It's not like the city has a bunch of time on their hands thanks to the disaster of EE45 and the proposed zoning changes and the horrible consultant they hired that they didn't do what they said they were going to. Evanston needs to come up with a way to actual make things happen instead of talking about it forever and paying consultants to not actually produce anything valuable. And this is coming from me, a consultant.
Also, don't get me started on the tree thing. Sure canopy coverage is good but when someone's tree is leaning over my garage and they want to take it down and the city says no, I'm honestly surprsied people haven't sued over that yet.