by Bonnie Chandler ·
Friday, March 28, 2025
The proposed bylaw amendments limiting tree cutting don’t belong in the Erosion Control bylaw because they are masquerading as something they are not. What they are really about is the theory of human climate change, not erosion. After all, the committee proposing it is the Climate Initiative Committee, not the Planning Board. The climate committee has made it clear that its main interest is perpetuating the “tree canopy” to prevent climate change.
Climate is a controversial subject that should be discussed openly, not hidden in an unrelated law. Scientists still disagree strongly about it; you have only to ask some of the highly credentialed physicists and astrophysicists who live right here in Harvard to learn that.
The committee admits that the bylaw is required by a certain grant that comes with strings attached. We should stop accepting grants with strings attached.
Other problems: Unless major construction is involved, the tree warden says he will have an “educational discussion” with homeowners to “persuade” them not to cut trees. But that is not what regulations are for. They are black-and-white rules, not educational opportunities. The proper format for that would be a “resolution.”
Also, bylaw designers can’t control how future tree wardens will act. The most important principle in designing legislation is to prevent future misuse, but this law is dangerously vague. When homeowners cut eligible trees, they must notify the town, present a plan and, apparently (this is unclear), find out whether they need a permit or a talking-to. The bylaw gives no guidance on principles for the permit or the talking-to. Committee members say there are no consequences, but the financial effect of delaying plans is consequential.
This law also creates many perverse incentives that I listed in my last letter.
Our treasured rural town character won’t last long with laws like this one. The committee says their recent tweaking fixed minor issues, but it did not—and nothing could fix the major issue: This proposal is a perfect example of an overreaching law that threatens us with creeping authoritarianism.
Bonnie Chandler
Prospect Hill Road
Editor’s Note: While a few scientists may continue to question the reality of climate change, they are a minority. The reports of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, issued once every five years, are considered the most authoritative summaries of what’s known and not known about the subject. The most recent report was released March 20, 2023. It concludes—with “high confidence”—that human activities, principally emissions of greenhouse gases, “have unequivocally caused global warming,” leading to “widespread and rapid changes” in the atmosphere, ocean, biosphere and frozen parts of the Earth.