Barking up the wrong tree

Editorial by Durham Herald-Sun, May 1, 2014.

The quest by the state legislature to usurp local government’s control in many areas continues so relentlessly we can barely catch our breath between threats.

Just a couple of weeks ago, a legislative committee crafted legislation that would greatly restrict the ability of Durham and other cities to decide how to levy privilege taxes against businesses.

Before that, it was annexation, and billboard controls. Lawmakers have undermined Durham’s ability to manage growth by ordering the city to extend utilities to the 751 South development.  Do the residents of a city want stricter gun-control ordinances? Forget about that -- the folks on Jones Street who talk about limiting the scope of big government only mean limiting the scope of governments larger or smaller than them.

Now, the latest travesty threatens to eviscerate cities’ authority to impose tree-protection rules and landscaping requirements on private development.

Such controls are key, in a city like Durham, to assuring some preservation of a tree canopy that is beloved by residents and a critical environmental benefit.

The city-county Unified Development Ordinance -- which encompasses the very controls the proposed legislation would prohibit -- makes the case well:

“Durham County is endowed with an abundance of natural resources, including land, forests, streams and rivers, lakes, wildlife and natural beauty. Inappropriate development threatens the quality of the natural resources that make it a special place to live and work. Durham's governing bodies recognize that establishing standards for the protection of Durham County's natural resources represents prudent stewardship of the land and good business.”

It is good business to protect those resources -- and to create and retain an attractive community where job creators want to live and work. The development ordinance notes pointedly that one purpose is to “enhance the aesthetic appearance of Durham as a means of improving quality of life and attracting new businesses and residents.”

The ordinance details many other reasons for its environmental protections -- preserving water quality, minimizing flooding risks, preventing sedimentation and erosion, minimizing the adverse impact of development, for example.

Similarly, in Chapel Hill, the Town Council stiffened planting and protection requirements in 2011 to “to preserve, maintain, and increase tree canopy to protect the public health, safety, and welfare and enhance the quality of life in Chapel Hill.”

But the juggernaut in Raleigh is convinced it knows better how to enhance the quality of life in Chapel Hill than a council elected by the town’s voters.

Many in Durham argue our tree and landscaping protections are too weak.

But the legislature may be bent on forestalling any debate over whether our ordinances should be stronger by saying it’s none of our business how much tree coverage new subdivisions should have, for example, or if tree buffers should be required to screen parking lots.

Let’s hope a majority of our legislators will take an ax, or perhaps a chainsaw, to this latest assault on local decision-making.

http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/editorials/x483413928/Barking-up-a-wrong-tree