Harvard’s erosion control bylaw is not intended to control everything everywhere. Yet that is what Climate Initiative Committee Chair Ellen Sachs Leicher seemed to think when she told the Select Board the bylaw has “a huge gap.” She advocated amendments to prevent residents from cutting down their own trees – even a single large tree.
Leicher wants to protect the “tree canopy,” but that is a different issue—climate—and therefore doesn’t belong in an erosion control bylaw at all. Overbroad laws are often misused. That argument defeated the erosion control bylaw the first time we voted on it. Now, as predicted by those who opposed the bylaw earlier, we are threatened with extensions that are authoritarian, unclear, and open to more misuse.
New construction has its own separate rules; if needed, tree rules could be added. However, owners of preexisting properties should be free to clear trees for firewood, gardens, pastures, trails, fire breaks, solar panels, etc. The proposal exempts “agriculture,” but do small hobbyists qualify as farmers? Do farmers still have to submit plans? And remember, Massachusetts Chapter 61 protects forestry and recreation as well as farming.
Did the authors of this proposal consider the incentives it creates? Harvard is a “right-to-farm” town because we love the rural atmosphere. Some people may just want a suburban house, but if we chase away the ones who want more than that, the rural atmosphere will soon be gone. Furthermore, controlling everything is expensive, so the more permits, hearings, and administration we add, the higher our taxes get. We ought to encourage residents who want to use their land. If rules are unfriendly to farmers and hobbyists, they may subdivide, sell, and leave. That means more houses, fewer trees, and increased population density, putting wells and septic systems at risk and overcrowding our schools. And how would the law be enforced? As for the outrageous provision requiring professional proof that a tree is dying or dangerous, wow! People will simply let dangerous trees fall down, regardless of the hazard.
The promoters of laws that take away our rights never seem to consider that other people have different priorities, nor do they weigh the consequences and incentives they are creating. If we don’t think ahead, it will only hasten the damage to density, taxes, town character, and our freedom.
Bonnie Chandler
Prospect Hill Road
