JUANA SUMMERS, HOST:
Tree laws are regulations that tell a homeowner when they can or cannot remove a tree on their property. They're simple on their face, but deeply divisive in practice. Jeff Guo from our Planet Money podcast reports on how these tree laws are raising constitutional and even philosophical questions.
JEFF GUO, BYLINE: In America, we have this habit of settling our biggest philosophical debates with lawsuits. So when the people of Canton, Michigan, had to answer the question, what does it mean to own something? - they headed to court. The case was about trees.
How important are trees to the people of Canton?
ANNE MARIE GRAHAM-HUDAK: Oh, they're very important. Are you kidding?
GUO: Anne Marie Graham-Hudak is the supervisor of Canton, Michigan, which is like your classic American tree-loving suburb. The streets are lined with maples and lindens and oaks. A lot of the streets are even named after trees. And in Canton, like in a lot of towns and cities across America, you might have to get a permit before cutting down your tree. Anne Marie says that's because your trees aren't just your trees. They matter to the whole community. Trees filter the air and provide shade to the neighborhood. Their roots soak up stormwater and help prevent floods.
GRAHAM-HUDAK: We're very, very cognizant of the health of the community, and we're responsible for keeping that healthy community.
GUO: But then in 2018, officials discovered that an entire forest at the edge of town suddenly was missing. Property owners had just cut down more than 1,500 trees, no permits, no permission, nothing. According to the law, those owners had to compensate the community by either replacing their trees or paying some half a million dollars in fees. That's when this case attracted the attention of a constitutional lawyer named Chance Weldon.
CHANCE WELDON: I'm the director of litigation at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and that means that I sue the government for a living, which is an absolutely sweet gig.
GUO: The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a conservative free market think tank. And Chance thinks that these tree protection laws are essentially a kind of governmental theft.
What you're saying is, if you can't cut down the tree, then is it still your tree? Does it just become the government's tree?
WELDON: Yeah, that's the theory. And they're just basically forcing you into this mandatory physical occupation of your property.
GUO: Chance thought that Canton, Michigan's, tree law violated the takings clause of the Constitution, which says that the government can't just take your property or take advantage of your property without paying you.
It's like the government should pay you tree rent.
WELDON: Yes, that was the argument, is if they care so much about the tree, then they should have to pay for the use of the property.
GUO: In 2021, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the property owners. Now, it didn't order the township to pay tree rent, but it did say that Canton, Michigan's, tree-cutting fees were unconstitutional in this case, that the fees might have been disproportionately high. This is one of the rare times in recent years when a court has said, hey, there are limits to what towns can order property owners to do. Chance and lawyers like him are hoping the Canton case can be a template for challenging how zoning laws and building permits and environmental regulations work.
Since the lawsuit, Canton, Michigan, has changed its tree laws to be a bit more flexible, but there are still fees to cut down a tree. Anne Marie Graham-Hudak says property owners do have rights, but they also have an important responsibility to help keep their neighborhoods green.
Jeff Guo, NPR News. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
