Other voices: Taking a chainsaw to local control
Published 12:00 am Wednesday, June 30, 2021
If a tree falls in the forest …
A bill quietly passed the state House on May 11 that could fell its share of oaks and maples, regardless of what local communities may want.
Approved mostly along partisan lines, House Bill 496 would uproot the authority of many North Carolina towns to determine the fates of their own trees.
It now awaits consideration in the state Senate.
If it becomes law, the bill would forbid local governments from adopting or enforcing local ordinances that regulate the removal of trees from private property without first seeking approval from the General Assembly.
In other words, state lawmakers would have the power to determine how communities manage their trees. This legislation is, in essence, a love letter to developers … and a Dear John text to small cities and towns. It is also only the latest example of government overreach from a Republican-controlled legislature that wants us to believe it opposes government overreach.
Greensboro appears unaffected by the legislation, since special legislation in 1979 gave it the power to set its own rules for trees, city planners say.
In all, about 40 municipalities would be exempted. But many smaller communities would not be so fortunate.
They include Summerfield. And Jamestown, whose town council has passed resolution against HB 496, saying the bill “which would effectively eliminate local authority regulating trees and land use decisions related to such.”
Among other local governments that have expressed concerns about the legislation is one in a community named for a tree.
Recently the Town Council in Oak Island, whose members are Republican, with the exception of one unaffiliated council person, drafted a resolution opposing the tree bill.
Noting “that trees in our Town increase property values, help protect our island environment, provide sanctuary for local wildlife, and beautify our community,” the resolution goes on to declare that the council “encourages retaining local control over tree protection ordinances.”
Environmentalists also oppose the bill because of the impact the loss of trees can have on climate change, flood control and air and water quality.
Urban tree canopy comprises roughly 54% of total land mass in the state, versus the national average of 39%. North Carolina also ranks in the top 10 nationally in urban tree canopy cover. But creeping development poses an imminent threat. The percentage of urban land in North Carolina has increased from 9.5% in 2010 to 11.5% in 2020. The N.C. Forest Service estimates that the state is losing more than 4,500 acres of urban tree canopy each year.
So, obviously, you have to wonder what House lawmakers were thinking when they passed this bill.
Among the ayes in the vote were Guilford County Republicans Jon Hardister and John Faircloth.
Hardister, who says he does not oppose local tree ordinances per se, cites private property owners’ rights as one reason he voted for House Bill 496.
“How much power should local governments have to tell property owners what they can and cannot do with landscaping on their own property?” Hardister wrote in an email Thursday. “For instance, if a person wanted to clear trees to install a playground in their backyard for their children, how much power should local governments have to control this?”
A more pertinent question is how much power should state government have to control this?
Hardister added that “there have been instances brought to my attention where developers have been unable to develop property due to restrictive covenants.” He said he worries that local tree ordinances could pose an obstacle to affordable housing.
But, given the projected $6.5 billion windfall in state tax revenues over the next years — and the current $5 billion surplus — maybe a better solution would be less draconian unemployment benefits and more affordable-ousing assistance?
In any case, these matters should be left to local communities to debate, not Raleigh lawmakers.
What Hardister sees as “a check and balance” appears to be more check than balance — and a clear attempt to tilt the scales with the thumb of the General Assembly.
The bill has now been moved to the Senate Rules and Operations Committee, which should prune its branches, chop its trunk and ground its stump into mulch.
— Greensboro News & Record