This week’s “Daily Journal” guest columnist is Dr. Michael Sanera, Research Director and Local Government Analyst for the John Locke Foundation.
I have to admit that I am a tree hugger of the first order. I planted 15 trees next to my house last year, and I planted 30 more this year. I love trees. I also respect property rights and a landowner’s right to plant or cut trees on his property. Unfortunately, an assault on property rights in North Carolina is in full swing, and those who believe that the “community” owns your trees are winning (in a state where 58 percent of the land area is covered by trees, the third-highest percentage in the nation).
In Raleigh, Chapel Hill, and even Garner, tree ordinances control the cutting of trees on private property. Many cities start with an ordinance that applies only to vacant property when it is developed for housing or commercial uses, but very quickly revisions control trees on property owned by individual businesses and homeowners. Since these ordinances control what property owners can and cannot do with their trees, they have the effect of transferring ownership of the trees from private property owners to the “community.”
In Raleigh, the Eaton family’s dream of a new home on Lake Wheeler Road turned into a nightmare. The city’s tree ordinance caused costly delays, and since they no longer “owned” the trees on their lot their home plans had to be modified. They could not have the big front yard or the in-ground pool they dreamed about.
Millbrook Baptist Church submitted plans to the City of Raleigh for a 7,354-square-foot expansion in 2000. These plans were approved, but the church did not have the money to expand until 2006. When they reapplied in 2006, church leaders got a rude awakening and costly delays because the tree ordinance, passed after 2000, transferred “ownership” of their trees to the “community.” In fact, whereas the original plans were approved by the Planning Department, the tree ordinance required the resubmitted plans to go through a new process and Planning Commission approval.
City leaders in Chapel Hill are considering strengthening their already stringent tree protection ordinance so that it applies to individual homeowners who want to add additions to their houses. Homeowners will have to pay for a “tree survey” that plots the location of every tree. This survey must be submitted with construction plans. If the community’s “ownership” rights to the trees conflict with the homeowner’s plans for a new addition, he will have to modify his plans. The “community’s” ownership of the trees supercedes the homeowner’s right to a new addition.
Tree ordinances are not just limited to cutting down trees. Raleigh fined an auto dealer on North Capital Boulevard $57,000 for improper trimming of trees located on private property but owned by the “community.” Another business was fined $10,700. If more than half of a tree’s crown is trimmed, the property owner must pay the fine and replace the tree. Just to make sure the public gets the message that the “community” owns its trees, the city’s forest specialist, Andy Gilliam, was quoted as saying, “There’s a potential for this to happen to anybody.”
But who is this “community” that owns your trees? Supporters of tree ordinances claim that they represent the entire community and that they are performing a public service by pressuring the city council to pass restrictions on private property owners. The opposite is true. Those who lobby for tree ordinances are using governmental force for their selfish benefit. They gain a benefit from driving through a community filled with trees, but instead of paying for that benefit, they use governmental force to impose that cost on individual landowners.
The next time a city council is approached by a special interest lobbyist supporting a tree ordinance, at least one council member should look him in the eye and say, “If you like trees, why don’t you buy some and knock on the door of a homeowner and ask if you can plant them on his private property.”