Posted on 11/24/2004 2:14:22 PM PST by Chummy
Waukesha - A move to protect trees along Waukesha County lakefronts stirred a philosophical debate among county supervisors Tuesday on the role of government in safeguarding the environment.
The County Board approved regulations restricting a property owner's ability to remove trees within 35 feet of a lake.
Many supervisors opposed the measure, arguing that property owners should not be accountable to government when deciding whether to remove trees on their own land.
"This, to me, is over-regulation," Supervisor Karl Nilson of New Berlin said.
After nearly an hour of debate, the board passed the restrictions on a 21-8 vote.
Kathy Moore, a senior planner in the county Parks and Land Use Department, told supervisors that state law mandates shoreline protection, and that county officials were only updating an old ordinance.
The new ordinance requires property owners to pay $80 for a permit to remove trees along a lakefront.
It limits to 30% the portion of shoreline they may clear on their property, and it requires them to replace trees if they exceed that limit, including dead or diseased trees in some instances.
Supervisor Mareth Kipp of the Town of Genesee applauded the rules, saying they are intended to protect natural resources that could outlive anyone who owns property today.
"We may think we own it, but we really don't," Kipp said.
Others warned that government regulation could infringe even more on property owners.
Supervisor Rodell Singert of Vernon questioned whether approval of the regulations would invite government restrictions on private property farther than 35 feet from shore.
"We don't need government to tell us what to do," he said. "We don't need a permit to go cut down a dead tree."
And worse, the majority of this Board apparently agreed with such misguided sentiment.
Yup... there you go!
Been like this in ME for a long time.
Without checking, my hunch is that's going to be $80 per tree, alive or dead, and "dead" will require an additional expenditure to certify the tree is bereft of life, ceases to exist, etc. (with apologies to Monty Python's Flying Circus)
Just a hunch.
On Lake James, NC in Burke County, the current covenents are 125 foot setback from the Lake. When we built here last year it was a 65 foot setback.
And encourage shoreline erosion. Folks need to understand the reasoning behind some of these ideas. Some are unreasonable, but that is a qualitative term.
Time for some midnight chainsaw civil disobedience. Cut 'em all down.
What we taught in colege, is that you don't own it until the judge says that you own it. Then you get to pay taxes.
colege= college, spellcheck is your friend
Presumed tendency should not trump private property rights.
Folks can generally think for themselves pretty well, given the opportunity.
A covenant between private property owners is not the same as a setback ordinance enforced by a unit of government. That may explain this difference?
Was that the Colege of Karl Marx?
Legal aspects of surveying.
Oh, and they prof that taught the class, was no liberal.
I'm from the government and I am here to help.
My Maine town is after us with similar regs.
You think that is over regulation? Try moving out west!!!
Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.