Overreaching Council Passes Invasive Tree Law | Letter To The Editor

The following Letter to the Editor was submitted by Samuel F. Bakhoum and Ashley Laughney Bakhoum of Rye.

Yesterday, the Rye City council passed an amendment to the "Trees" code 187 that severely restricts tree cutting and clearing on private property. While the motivation for this revised legislation was inspired by the noble desire to protect trees from indiscriminate tree clearing associated with new construction and large developments, the law does not achieve this goal. Instead, it heavily encroaches on the average property owner in Rye. From its inception, this amendment was born in haste, and likewise was passed in haste. We are grateful for the concerted effort of members of the tree council to develop a piece of legislation. However, this legislation needs significant iteration. It is far from complete in part because its implementation is not clear, and the legal, administrative, and financial consequences were not adequately considered. Such sweeping reform requires more careful deliberation, meaningful incorporation of community feedback, and wider acceptance. Despite claims to the contrary, no meaningful effort was made to incorporate constructive feedback outside of the focus group that wrote this amendment.

This revised code has many legal shortcomings – as made evident by the confusion about its enforcement up until its last-minute approval. Pleas for a delayed vote until the law could be thoroughly reviewed and clarified were brushed aside. One significant pitfall of the revised code is its failure to deter large-scale clearing by developments – its very intent. The maximum financial penalty is minuscule compared to the substantial costs associated with new constructions in Rye. Instead, this code unduly penalizes the average homeowner, imposing a cumbersome permit process to cut a single tree of significant size in their own yard, even in emergencies.

Further, this revised code exposes the town to considerable new liabilities in instances where a tree, deemed safe by the town but not by the homeowner, falls and causes loss of life or property. Why is the town usurping homeowners’ decision-making rights when it is not willing to share the associated risks and liabilities?

While the council has indicated a review of the law in 14 months to consider improvements, it remains unclear how its effects will be assessed. There has been no data presented on the number of trees removed or clearing events occurring before the new code’s enforcement. Thus, evaluating any potential benefits of this law will also be a challenge.

Samuel F. Bakhoum and Ashley Laughney Bakhoum

Rye, New York

This Letter to the Editor was submitted by readers. The views expressed here are the authors' own.