Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2021 The Somerville Times. All rights reserved.
(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries and letters to the Editor of The Somerville Times belong solely to the authors and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville Times, its staff or publishers.)
As a Somerville homeowner, I applaud the Tree Protection amendment to Somerville’s zoning ordinance introduced by City Councilors Mark Niedergang and JT Scott (“Legal protections for Somerville’s trees”, February 13, 2019). Opponents of this amendment argue that it is a regulatory intrusion and an undue financial burden on homeowners. However, they are mistaken on both counts.
Somerville decided long ago that it is appropriate for zoning to regulate numerous aspects of private property, such as fences, building siding and fenestration, outbuildings and decks, etc., even though these are cosmetic concerns with no direct impact on neighborhood well-being. In contrast, trees on private properties provide numerous “environmental infrastructure” benefits to the entire community, such as carbon capture, water storage, air purification, sound dampening, and shading and cooling of residents and structures. Under current law, property owners are free to destroy this community infrastructure without any obligation to compensate the community for the loss. The amendment merely closes this illogical coverage gap in our zoning.
The amendment also represents smart financial forethought. An urban community like Somerville has major environmental infrastructure needs, many of which– in a fortunate coincidence– match the benefits provided by trees. If the city is ever forced to design and procure new systems to meet these needs – which are increasing as Somerville grows – the cost to Somerville’s taxpayers will be astronomical. Fortunately, we already have an elegant system that provides all of these benefits, and best of all, this system costs nothing to design and construct – it literally grows on trees. But for all their abilities, one thing trees can’t do is defend themselves against chainsaws. That’s what makes this amendment necessary today.
Ulysses Lateiner
Somerville
If you found this article of interest, please consider sharing it.
Just out of curiosity, what is your stand on Roe v Wade? Are you consistent with your policies on personal freedom?
Dearest Ulysses.
First, I will assume you have already taken down any large tree that might have in the way of anything you wanted to do.
Second, yes, the zoning and building codes do cover a lot of what you can build, but not so much what you can undo.
If I remove my deck or my fence, there is really not so much they can do.
And when it comes to landscaping, if I wanted to be told I can only grow Kentucky Blue Grass must keep it trimmed between 2.5″ and 3.25″, I would have bought someplace with a fascist HOA.
I respect your opinion. As for my property, and it is mine as I busted my butt to own this little private property and I will do as I wish and will continue to do so. The city has no right to tell me what to do on private property(and I do mean private property). This is America last I looked. If I wanted trees on my property I would have bought in the suburbs. I have no trees and it is nicely hot topped. I fought not to have a tree in front of my house and I won. No tree to clean up after. No tall grass to get fined for. I don’t tell others what to do on their property and I expect the same for mine. When I am gone the next person can do as they wish.
Terrific letter! I’m a homeowner and I support the ordinance. By the way, other homeowners, yes, the city has the right to tell you what you can and can’t do on your property when it affect the environment. For example, you are not allowed to burn leaves (or garbage or tires anything else) on your property. You are not allowed to dispose of used motor oil on your property. You are not allowed to remove asbestos from your property by yourself. There is recognition that some things that take place on private property have a public health impact for the community beyond your property line. Same thing applies here.
This letter makes two claims: that the tree ordinance is in fact not an intrusion, and that it is not a financial burden on homeowners. Both are poorly argued.
That this ordinance is a regulatory intrusion is self-evident. I own my trees, and the city is trying to tell me what to do with them. Justification by citing other intrusions is not a good argument. Moreover, justifying the intrusion by saying it’s desirable for the community is simply tyranny by the majority, where majority means everybody who doesn’t own a large tree yet reaps the benefits. How many large trees do you own, Ulysses?
The second assertion is that tree-owning home owners are incorrect in claiming that the tree ordinance is an unjust financial burden. This claim is completely unsupported. The last paragraph instead argues (in vague terms no less) that the tree ordinance is a smart financial move *for the city*. No kidding! The city gets to tell home owners with trees what to do, and those home owners pick up the bill. Mark Niedergang and JT Scott can then claim they are looking out for the environment without doing any real work on everything wrong with public trees. It’s brilliant!
Here’s how I feel: If the city wishes my trees to be a common good, they can offer me a deal: write reimbursement checks for professional tree trimming ($1500 every other year), leaf raking, gutter cleaning, and, when the trees inevitably die, the now mandatory land survey (~$500), permit fee (?), and removal and replacement ($$$$) cost. I should be able to reject this offer of financial assistance if I wish to preserve my freedom to chop down or otherwise maintain my property as I see fit. All my non-tree owning, shade-freeloading neighbors may plant and care for their own trees.