Tree huggers beware. A bill moving in NC could trim tree protections.
One thing that’s sure to bring complaints in leafy North Carolina towns is the sight of a field freshly clearcut of trees or crews taking down long-established oaks.
Now a bill moving through the state legislature may make local officials less able to prevent such taking of trees. House Bill 496 would require local governments to obtain the General Assembly’s approval for restrictions on removing trees from private property. Tree ordinances in about 40 of the state’s larger cities and towns have such approval, but the proposed law would eliminate tree protections in many towns and counties that have approved them only at the local level.
Rep. Mark Brody, a Union County Republican and a co-sponsor of the proposed change, said it’s necessary because tree ordinances involve costs and restrictions that legally should be approved by legislature. “A lot of municipalities are deciding on their own and the heck with the General Assembly,” he said.
That reasoning is a stretch. It would seem to subject every local fee and fine to legislative approval. But it shows again how far so-called small government Republicans are willing to reach to interfere in local control when it serves their ideology or donors.
Homebuilders and developers have long sought relief from the restraints of tree ordinances and this effort could provide it. The bill passed the House 72-43 – enough to overcome a veto – and is awaiting action in the Senate.
The measure is drawing strong opposition from environmentalists and local governments, but Brody, a small-scale homebuilder, said the objections are being stoked by “hyperbole.”
“Everybody can read the bill. It doesn’t say we are going to chop down all the trees and ruin the landscape,” he said.
True, but nullifying many local tree ordinances could accelerate the state’s loss of trees. North Carolina is losing more than 4,500 acres of urban tree canopy every year, according to the N.C. Forest Service. And the loss isn’t only about natural aesthetics. Trees in urban ares are important for controlling flooding, protecting air and water quality, providing wildlife habitat, capturing carbon and cooling the landscape.
Cassie Gavin, a lobbyist for the North Carolina chapter of the Sierra Club, said her group strongly opposes the bill. “Given the need to address climate change and the prediction that North Carolina will get hotter – lawmakers should instead be looking for ways to help local governments protect trees,” she said.
It’s unclear whether the legislature has the authority to limit tree protection measures.
“If homebuilders really believe that the ordinances are not constitutional, they would have challenged them in court. That hasn’t happened,” said Scott Mooneyham, a spokesman for the N.C. League of Municipalities. “The idea that municipalities cannot regulate trees in any shape or form within the authority they already have is absurd. These ordinances have been on the books for years.”
Tree ordinances – tough, lenient or in between– should reflect local characteristics and priorities. Cookie-cutter tree ordinances will lead to more cookie-cutter subdivisions.
“Why can’t we keep doing what we’re doing, unless (state lawmakers) want to get to the point where they say what a tree ordinance is,” said Wake Forest Mayor Vivian Jones. “That’s what scares me, that it will become a statewide tree ordinance.”
Brody hinted that that may be the long-range plan. “We do want to address some very draconian tree ordinances, but that is not in this bill,” he said. “That’s something for later on.”
More control over tree protections by state lawmakers who favor the development industry would only increase the complaints that the Wake Forest mayor already hears from residents furious about the taking of trees in a city named for them.
“They say, ‘You might as well take forest out of the name,’ ” she said. “ ‘Call it Wake Cement, or something.’ ”