Does a town or city have the right to tell you what you can and can’t do with your trees? The Town of Chapel Hill thinks so. It passed an ordinance on June 11 that puts most of the decisions about trees in the hands of the Town Manager. Carolina Journal’s Donna Martinez talked about this issue with John Locke Foundation Research Director Michael Sanera. [Editor’s Note: This interview took place before the ordinance passed.] (Go to http://www.carolinajournal.com/cjradio/ to find a station near you or to learn about the weekly CJ Radio podcast.)
Martinez: I have to confess, I live in Orange County. I drive through Chapel Hill on a regular basis. It’s a beautiful town — like it a lot. There are lots of trees there. Why in the world is Chapel Hill worried about trees?
Sanera: Well, first, I have to confess that I’m a tree hugger from way back. A year ago, I planted 10 trees. I just planted 10 more trees. I planted 20 loblolly pines. And this is not a big lot that my house is on. So, I like trees. But I also respect other people’s property rights. And this is all about property rights. This is city government, all over the Triangle, all over the state, telling people what they can and can’t do with their trees. And in Chapel Hill, in particular, they’ve had a tree ordinance for a long time. And what happens is, they pass an initial tree ordinance that just impacts large lots, commercial development, housing developments and so forth. Then they start chipping away and getting down to the individual homeowner, and that’s the proposition in Chapel Hill now. If you want to add an extra room on the back of your house, you will have to conduct a tree survey, indicating all the trees on your property, and they will tell you if you can and if you can’t cut down trees. This is the height of invasion of property rights.
Martinez: We should be clear here. The tree ordinance that Chapel Hill is looking at is not just a general statement reaffirming that they want to have lots of trees in their town. It is incredibly specific, as you’ve just discussed. And what I’m wondering, Michael, is this: So if I have dead trees, then, on my lot, I cannot, under this ordinance, just go cut them down? I have to do this survey and get some official to tell me, yes, indeed, that’s a dead tree, go ahead and take it down?
Sanera: Well, I don’t think it goes quite that far, but that is probably the next step. It just impacts if you want to add an extra room onto your house. And what happens is, a homeowner is obviously scrimping and pinching pennies and wants to build on to a house at the least possible cost. What this does — and the bureaucrats really don’t care — is it adds delays, it adds extra cost. You have to have an expert come in and do a survey to plot the exact location of these trees. This is additional cost that must be paid, and maybe there are enough rich people in Chapel Hill that they don’t really care about this additional cost. But for us average people, every additional penny and every day delay in a project is money. And that is increasing the price of doing anything in Chapel Hill, which is already an extremely expensive town to live in.
Martinez: Sure. They have a huge problem with affordable housing.
Sanera: Exactly.
Martinez: Well, Michael, what also is interesting about what is now occurring in Chapel Hill is this: They also have a number of other ordinances and things that they have adopted in the town that you have written about, and, actually, there might be some conflicts here. Tell us about the Million Solar Roofs initiative in Chapel Hill and how that relates to the tree ordinance.
Sanera: Well, absolutely. They have a goal of increasing the solar energy in Chapel Hill, and they want to put solar collectors on as part of a Million Solar Roof Project that is a national project. And, obviously, if you’ve got a lot of trees on your property, and you want to put a solar roof on, you need the sun. You don’t need shade from trees blocking your solar collector.
Martinez: Some of those trees are going to have to go.
Sanera: So, I want to see the expression on the face of the council members when somebody comes in and says, “I want to abide by both of your ordinances, and I can’t do it.”
Martinez: That’s right.
Sanera: “I can’t put a solar collector on my house because I’ve got trees. I can’t cut down the trees to put my solar collector. What do you want me to do?”
Martinez: That would be fascinating to see. And, in fact, Michael, you also point out that in Chapel Hill there is something called the Active Living by Design recommendations.
Sanera: Yes, this is another one of these sound-good policies that are being pushed nationally by zealots. And what they want to do — and it makes some sense — is to make sure towns are designed so people can bicycle and walk and have a healthy lifestyle. Well, one of the provisions of this program is to make sure that pedestrians and bicyclists and so forth don’t have obstructions that will cause danger. In other words, they don’t have blind corners — they might get hit by a car. Well, trees and bushes and shrubs cause obstructions between the cars and the pedestrian or the bicyclist.
Martinez: Interesting. So, the question being, which one will win out — the trees or the person on the bike?
Sanera: Absolutely, another good example of coming before the city council and saying, “You guys want me to do these two things, which, on the surface are good. But which one wins out?”
Martinez: Well, of course, this is all happening in Orange County, the City of Chapel Hill. But, Michael, you’ve followed these types of issues all around North Carolina, and by no means is Chapel Hill the only city or town that is getting into these very restrictive ordinances that infringe on private property rights. In fact, you also have come across a story about a $50,000 fine that a car dealer incurred because of something that this person did. What happened?
Sanera: This is in Raleigh. And Raleigh has these ordinances. And this car dealer hired a commercial tree trimmer to come in and trim their trees. And when the city inspector went by, noticed that the trees were improperly trimmed — there is a right way and a wrong way to do it — and they, the City of Raleigh, fined this car dealer $57,000.
Martinez: Whoa.
Sanera: So, those trees that they thought were theirs are really the property of the city government, and unless you abide by these extremely detailed rules, you will pay the consequences, which is a $50,000 fine.
Martinez: Ouch on that one. And you also have come across the story of something that is going on in the town of Garner, North Carolina.
Sanera: Well, this is more speculation, but Garner has a tree ordinance. And these tree ordinances are springing up all over the state in very rapid succession. Garner has one, and I noticed they are building a wastewater treatment plant along Highway 50, in the south part of Garner. And it appears to me that they’ve pretty much clear-cut this lot.
Martinez: Which might be a problem.
Sanera: Yeah, I can’t see how they are — the city government or the state government, whoever is building this wastewater treatment — actually abiding by their own tree ordinance. It would be interesting to find out if they are, in fact, in violation.
Martinez: Well, Michael, I think all of this points out a question that many folks ask when we get into the details of these ordinances that do infringe on property rights. What’s next? If we are down to the point where we are talking about trees on someone’s property, what else could they potentially look at and infringe on our right to do with our property what we want?
Sanera: Well, there is a myriad of things, and it goes into all of the anti-development ordinances that come in. Some counties are passing adequate facilities ordinances, where you have to pay $10,000 if you want to build a house. Others have extremely high impact fees. And so, what is happening is, on one hand, the state is spending lots of money for economic development to attract business. On the other hand, state, city and local governments are trying to keep out development.