by Sam Lowenstein ·
Friday, March 7, 2025
I am writing in support of Bonnie Chandler’s letter published Feb. 28.
My wife and I moved to this beautiful town from the commonwealth of Virginia. Erosion control is often a far more serious issue there than here, and we were surprised how lax the rules were when moving to this town. Enacting the rules was old hat for us so we were happy to do it.
We would like to share, from first-hand experience, what happens when tree rules such as those proposed are enacted.
Those who can afford it just send in the fine and cut down the trees.
Many just cut down the tree and dare someone to prove it was cut down by the owner.
People cut down the trees at night.
Dangerous trees are allowed to stand and if they fall and hurt someone or something, the victim sues the town for the unreasonable tree policy. (Virginia is a Dillon-Rule state so this argument works there.)
My point is the erosion control rules are there to protect your neighbors from damage by runoff from land disturbance; this is a real thing. Adding unreasonable requirements to something reasonable is bad for everyone. Climate initiatives do nothing when the largest polluting countries have no obligation to follow them. There are much better arguments (economic, geopolitical, etc.) for doing some of these things than using a controversial reason.
Sam Lowenstein
Bolton Road