Proposed Tree Ordinance
I have reviewed the "revised" version of the proposed tree ordinance before County Council (now numbering 37 pages, up from the original 22) and I continue to oppose its enactment.
1. I see no benefit for the county by adding more bureaucratic red tape to an already burdensome and costly government structure. County estimates of start-up cost is $200,000; however, this will balloon rapidly as a backlog of nightmarish delays are created in meeting requirements of a tree ordinance. I do not argue with the "Findings" which quote extensively from the International Society of Arboriculture and/or the U.S. Department of Agriculture, citing the benefits of planting trees and protecting them when possible. I DO OBJECT to any ordinance, which further restricts the rights of private property owners (yes, developers are property owners, too) and lays out restrictions and penalties for certain choices relating to benefits of preserving trees. At one point in your document, the USDA refers to "city dwellers," which I might point out is not the case of those of us who enjoy the exact opposite - "rural dwelling." Allow City Council to deal with "city dwellers." The county is not a "Village."
2. I am not a developer nor do I plan to be. I am merely a landowner (and taxpayer) with 85 wooded acres in upper Greenville County. But I see the "tree police" tactics you are espousing as restrictive of free trade. What the ordinance proposes to do is create a mandatory fund to which developers must make a "deposit" against what might evolve into "treeless plains" if certain conditions aren't met. The flaws in this poorly conceived premise are myriad. For instance, acts of nature (drought, storms, etc.) play a crucial role in tree survival, especially large ones with extensive root systems, after being planted, moved, re-planted, removed, watered or not watered, fertilized or not fertilized, etc.) "Variances" won't cut it. Trying to repeal or tweak a law is harder than trying to pass it. Meanwhile, the "little guy" - small businessman-builder struggling to survive in the tough housing market which now exists, faces yet another obstacle to overcome to make a living in Greenville County. This smacks of "FREE TRADE" restricted. If this ordinance is to address what you see as a core issue of preserving and planting more trees, incentives (perhaps in the form of tax credits?) would seem more amenable than what is now proposed.
3. At some point I am planning to build a home on my land and the chosen site will certainly involve disturbing more than "one acre" of my land to gain access and build a road or roads to my hilltop dwelling. Am I a "developer" then?
These are only a few of the "holes" in this proposal, but I am not pointing them out to get them "filled" or "fixed." Rather, I am objecting strenuously to this whole concept. This is not government "for the trees by the trees." If I recall the U.S. Constitution correctly, government for the people should be directed by the people - you, our leaders. May I point out that the ballot box speaks loudly, as evidenced in the last County Council election figures. The people are "on point." Are you ruling or serving? Are we free or oppressed? Should you legislate preferences and to what degree? I consider this ordinance to be indirect taxation, in that those who own trees must ultimately pay the cost to provide forestation for society in general (those who don't own land and/or trees).
Apparently, Council is planning an immediate vote after the hearing, indicating a decision to ignore public comment without further consideration. Why then bother with a "hearing"?
Were I a developer, rather than being simply a true lover and owner of many, many trees, I would be in court challenging the county on this the minute a final vote - if favorable -was taken.
In the meantime, as a devoted arborist in the community, I am seeking to rally fierce opposition to this ordinance and I plan to voice these and other relevant concerns at the public hearing November 6 at County Square. I am trusting that media coverage of this event will spur concerned citizens to contact Council and make their opinions known.
|
