Not a trick question.
Do you really own something if you have to ask permission (and even pay the city a fee) to get rid of it?
As Lake Oswego begins yet another round of Tree Code revisions, one has to wonder whose trees are they trying to regulate — publicly-owned trees, or your privately-owned trees — the ones you bought, planted, water, prune, care for, clean up after — and why? When do your rights end and government overreach begins? Some Lake Oswego activists have said that trees should be considered a public utility and regulated as such. Land grab? Arrogance? Control of the masses by the elite?
What is the public’s interest in regulating privately-owned trees?
Q: Once you have answered that question, you need to square your answer with private property rights as guaranteed in the Constitution. How, when, why, and under what conditions does the government have a right to control what you do with your property?
A: Government’s interest in private property exists when activity on private land will directly (negatively) impact the rights of other property owners. E.G.: When Landowner A wants to cut down a tree for a better view on a steep slope where this would create increased erosion and slope instability impacting Landowner B who lives downhill.
Finally, WHO should be involved in amending Lake Oswego’s Tree Codes? The new Task Force involves a consulting group, city staff, key professional “stakeholders” and at-large members - once of whom is on the board of the Oswego Lake Watershed Council (see below). As with most government committees, members are chosen by the City Council for their expertise or activism in a subject. If only people who are known to to the Councilors or city staff populate code (and other) committees, the results will be whatever the political machine wanted in the first place - NOT what is best for the residents of the city. It’s what they think is best for us.
Knowing how well government handles our affairs, how could they possibly go wrong with controlling our land and homes? Whose values and agendas are in play?
The biggest threats to Lake Oswego’s tree canopy are:
1. Government-mandated increase in density - smaller lots and multifamily housing cannot sustain as many trees or the large, native trees the city prefers. The main reason why wealthy neighborhoods have more trees than others is that larger lots = more and bigger trees.
2. The current market for large homes that use up more of a lot and displaces or prohibits large trees. With buildable land in short supply (as are all cities within government-controlled urban growth boundaries), new housing is expensive and requires larger homes for customers who will have to spend ever more to live here.
3. Development codes that prefer side-entry garages rather than “snout houses” where the garage faces the street. This requires more paved surface for a driveway and more trees that need to be removed. This planning preference attacks suburban aesthetics and inserts an elite attitude that government knows best.
4. Increased commercialization and densification of low-density neighborhoods. It’s all the rage - every city looks the same now with the same compact, mixed use development crammed into perfectly functional small towns and villages. All that development leaves little room for big trees. Tree growers have been creating narrow varieties of favorite landscape plants for years to go on increasingly smaller lots. This isn’t what residents want - it’s just what planners and politicians want us to have.
5. Life. Trees get old, diseased, die, and people get tired of raking leaves, pruning and watering. Some people just can’t afford to take care of their landscaping; tree care is time-consuming and expensive! Some people cut trees just to let in the sunlight. Some to create a lawn for their kids or an addition to their house. These are not actual threats to trees, they are what happens in areas inhabited by people, and then new trees are planted.
FINAL THOUGHTS ON TREE CODES
- What is the government’s interest when a private landowner cuts down a tree on their own property? WHY or when should City Hall even care?
- Why should a property owner need to get a permit to cut down his own trees? “Mommy may I?” (Especially downed or damaged trees after a wind or ice storm!).
- When and why can government tell private property owners what kinds of trees (or plants) they can or can’t plant? (There is a list of mitigation trees if you have to replace a tree…)
- What kind of regulations should governments impose on the maintenance of trees on private property? If they don’t enforce the ones they have now, why have them at all? What about caring for trees in the right-of-way abutting private property? If you are required care for them, do you eventually own the tree?
- Do regulations for the “common good” impose on Constitutionally guaranteed private property rights? Does the “common good” have the same or lesser rights?
- What is the right percent of tree canopy for Lake Oswego, and how is this determined? How is the percentage determined for any city? Should private property owners be responsible for fulfilling a scientifically questionable public policy?
- When do development codes conflict with tree codes, and why is the City trying so hard to control every aspect of what we can do with our property?
- No property owner should be required to give up their 4th Amendment rights to get a tree removal permit! That is unconstitutional. (See the signature line on the Tree Removal Application.)
- Is your Oregon White Oak tree on the city inventory of oak trees? What is the inventory for? Did you give permission to have your tree/property mapped for public consumption?
- Why is the Oswego Lake Watershed Council* a “partner” with the City Planning Department on all things related to streams, ground water, trees, vegetation and other environmental issues? Should private non-profit organizations with their own agendas have influence on public policy? Who speaks for the average LO resident when activists take over?
