Back in July, we learned that San Francisco property owners were likely to assume 100% responsibility for street trees (at that time, this was already the case for about 80 percent, of 89,000, trees). Now the transition is officially beginning.

What I didn’t realize was that, right around the same time, San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener wrote an Op-Ed in the Huffington Post about proposing a modest parcel tax — less than $100 annually — to offset these costs and partially fund returning this responsibility to the city. 

Less than $100 per year seems completely reasonable to me. But I’m curious what everyone else thinks.

[polldaddy poll=”5944139″]

[polldaddy poll=”5944128″]

San Francisco’s 12 percent tree canopy cover is already ranked well below other major metropolitan areas like Atlanta (36%), Houston (30%), Boston (29%), New York (24%) and Los Angeles (18%) — to name just a few. To put that in perspective, American Forests recommends 25-35% cover in areas West of the Mississippi.

In 2006 the San Francisco’s Urban Forestry Council created a master plan that proposed a city-wide canopy cover increase, from 12 percent to 15 percent, by 2016. Even that modest goal cannot be achieved without active participation and support from the city.

Image: Michael Patric|{