If you are running for the Dunedin City Council in the coming
election, I would like to know what your policy is on fruit
trees. Fruit trees, nut trees, berry bushes and, while you're
on the topic, community gardens.
This may seem like a minor issue in the grand scheme of a
local body election, but I, and all the people I like, want to
see more edible stuff growing in public places in the city.
For those of us who rent, public places may be the only
property we see ourselves as "owning". To us, rates, which
you might consider a major election issue, are not important:
we are rated by fate.
But we will feel empowered if we can go foraging on our
massive public estate. So we want more fruit trees there.
I've asked for your policy, but first, here's some blather
about the status quo. With this information, if you don't
already have a policy, you can quickly knock one up.
The DCC policy on street trees is old. It is 14 years old. It
seems unduly harsh on trees in general. I'm going to go out
on a branch and say it is at times ridiculous, because of how
fretful it is about trees.
Here is one of its sentences. "Council needs to proactively
(ie at the time of planting) and reactively manage street
trees to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of
trees while maximising their benefits."
The 14-year-old street tree planting policy includes lists of
species that are acceptable to the city. The only fruit trees
listed are apple and cherry. Cherry trees planted on streets
are always the ornamental kind. Apple trees are simply not
planted on streets, although the good folk of Northeast
Valley are getting several community orchards sorted for
their parks and reserves which will include apples.
People are invited through the DCC website to request types
of trees to be planted in parks and reserves. The council
gets plenty of requests for food trees, but is not what it
would call "proactive" about planting such species. Not on
anyone's Nelly.
By comparison, the Queenstown Lakes District Council has a
trees policy it updated last year that "has a key focus on
sustainability and self sufficiency".
It places "an emphasis on factors such as: longevity,
heritage value (natural and built), local character (natural
and built), low maintenance, fast-establishing species,
wildlife habitat, sustainability, fruit and nut production,
non-invasive species".
Fruit and nut production being the relevant bit here.
The QLDC's policy casts trees as "fundamental to human
existence and the continuity of the food web which supports
all life on Earth". The DCC's policy casts trees as the
devil, with their beastly "shading, loss of views, root
damage to pavement and adjacent properties, overhanging
branches and [risk to] traffic safety".
Also for comparison is Incredible Edible Todmorden. Todmorden
is a town in England that has food planted everywhere.
Cherries at the police station; pumpkins in the graveyard.
You can look it up if you want.
But if you've already read enough, then tell us your policy.
What future for fruit trees? What is your vege vision?
Whither or wither community gardens, and why?
There's plenty of space in the comments section below, and if
you use your actual name, the hundreds of eligible voters
who'll read this will know where you stand.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
A name, residential address, and (preferably residential) telephone number is required from readers who comment on ODT Online. These details will not be visible to site visitors.