A city at a turning point
Stamford has reached a moment of decision that will shape our neighborhoods for decades. Our tree canopy is shrinking. Heat is intensifying. Stormwater systems are overwhelmed more frequently. Residents across party lines — from lifelong conservatives to environmental advocates — supported a Tree Ordinance to address these issues pragmatically and fairly.
Yet the ordinance was vetoed.
The reasons given in the veto memo do not reflect the actual content of the ordinance — nor the reality that trees are not a luxury. They are practical infrastructure essential to public safety, property protection, and long-term fiscal responsibility.
What trees actually do for a city
There are few investments that yield as many benefits as mature trees:
• Shade can reduce street-level temperatures by more than 10 degrees
• Roots absorb thousands of gallons of stormwater, reducing flooding
• Trees improve air quality and public health
• Neighborhoods with higher canopy experience lower energy bills
• Homes surrounded by trees retain higher property value
• Wildlife habitat and community character depend on legacy trees
Urban forestry is not an environmental ideology! It is a public-safety strategy! At the UN Climate Action Summit I attended in 2019, the emphasis was clear:
Cities are the most vulnerable to rising heat and increasingly intense storms. Urban forests were identified as one of the most critical tools for resilience. Cities across the world represent 70% of all emissions. That was not a political statement. It was a practical one.
Connecticut has already recognized this reality
The Governor’s Council on Climate Change (GC3), which develops the state’s resilience policy, identifies tree canopy as essential infrastructure for protecting residents from:
• heat exposure
• stormwater overload
• public-health risks
• long-term structural decline
DEEP launched Urban Forest Equity & Resilience programs explicitly to:
• expand shade in underserved neighborhoods
• prevent stormwater failures
• reduce air pollution exposure
• and strengthen Connecticut’s municipal infrastructure
Stamford’s ordinance followed this state guidance precisely.
What the ordinance actually contained
The ordinance was measured and moderate:
For homeowners:
• A $15 registration for removing a large tree
• No discretionary denial — the homeowner retains full control
• Replacement only for the rare “legacy tree.”
For commercial properties:
• Replace the benefits of major trees removed, or contribute cost-equivalently to the Tree Fund
• Standard practice in every major Connecticut city.
For citywide urban forestry management:
• Establish an Urban Forester — finally giving Stamford professional capacity
• Create a consolidated Tree Commission made mostly of existing board leaders
• Produce annual canopy reporting and a Master Tree Plan.
This was not bureaucracy. This was good governance.
The veto arguments, one by one
Argument #1: Unnecessary bureaucracy
Every responsible city tracks tree removals. This is basic management — the same as tracking roads, sewers, or hydrants.
Argument #2: Overlapping boards
The Tree Commission brings together existing leadership to coordinate decisions affecting canopy. This reduces conflict. It does not create it.
Argument #3: Insufficient staffing
The ordinance creates staffing and provides 18 months for phased implementation. If Stamford can process thousands of development applications, it can manage tree oversight.
Argument 4: Construction costs
The cost of unmanaged heat and flooding is far higher. Mature trees reduce electric bills, prevent flood damage, and protect public health. Housing built without shade and infiltration capacity is not “affordable” — it is short-term savings with long-term costs for taxpayers.
The pattern: When developers object, protections disappear
This veto cannot be understood in isolation.
Over the past several years, reforms that impose even modest accountability on large developers — whether environmental, consumer protection, or animal welfare — have been softened, delayed, or vetoed altogether. The Tree Ordinance was amended repeatedly to accommodate developer concerns, yet vetoed anyway.
Homeowners were never the issue. Commercial developers were.
But it is the public — not the developers — who will bear the costs of:
• hotter streets
• reduced property values
• flooding
• lost shade
• stormwater failures
• degraded neighborhood quality.
A city cannot call itself responsible if its policies consistently shift long-term costs onto residents while shielding developers from basic accountability.
Stamford Is falling behind other Connecticut cities
Hartford, New Haven, West Hartford, Hamden, East Hartford, and Fairfield already use frameworks similar to this ordinance. These cities are not experimenting. They are taking common-sense steps to avoid future crisis. Stamford should be leading. This veto pushes us further behind, shamelessly.
The board must override
This is not a partisan issue. It is not even an environmental issue. It is a matter of:
• safety
• infrastructure
• fiscal responsibility
• planning
• basic common sense
Stamford’s residents — across all political affiliations — supported this ordinance because they understand what is happening in their neighborhoods. We cannot keep cutting away at the very system that cools our streets, protects our property, and holds back floodwater. The Board of Representatives must override the veto and restore the Tree Ordinance. Our city’s future depends on decisions like this.
—
David Michel was a Connecticut State Representative from 2019 to 2025. He served on the committees of Environment and of Planning & Development, both, for 6 years. He also served on Public Health and Transportation.