Letters

As an avid gardener and lover of trees, my heart appreciates the spirit behind the proposed tree law in Southampton Village. My mind knows that the problems outweigh any benefits.

First, some history. Thanks to a century of intense landscaping and irrigation, there are currently more mature trees in Southampton Village than at any time in history. Those who celebrate trees’ benefits to the environment are correct, but we already have an embarrassment of riches.

More than 90 percent of the mature and even “heritage” trees in the village are nonnative (which, incidentally, risk blight and demand more irrigation from our aquifer). When English settlers arrived in Southampton, there were basically seven tree species: white cedar, scrub oak, scrub pine, locust, American chestnut, black cherry and sassafras. Very few of any of these species exist in the village today.

The remaining vegetation was a thicket of blueberry, laurel, bayberry and vines. There were no sycamores, maples, cryptomeria, European beeches, arborvitae, lindens, etc. — the trees that today dominate our village forest. So those who say that this law would protect the natural environment are mistaken; our forest is an artificial one.

The impetus for this law seems to be the understandable anger one feels when a lot is clearcut. How often does this happen? Once, twice, four times per year, each affecting less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the village forest. More importantly, clearcuts are typically followed, within a year or two, by significant planting of new material. Lots that were clearcut on Wickapogue Road five years ago are today indistinguishable from their neighbors.

Any gardener or tree aficionado knows that good stewardship requires pruning and even removal, sometimes on short notice. For both practical and principled reasons, the last thing we should do is burden responsible homeowners with additional administration simply to maintain the properties they own and steward.

Most importantly, the proposed law is unworkable. Existing code theoretically requires about 100 homeowners to keep their hedges from obstructing sidewalks, yet we don’t effectively enforce that. The chance that existing personnel could enforce a law affecting 3,000 homes in areas not visible from the street — or that the village would hire one or two additional employees to do so — is zero.

Rather than using the sticks of permits and sanctions, perhaps we should consider the carrot of better maintaining our village trees to set an example. Or why not sponsor a symposium with experts educating the public on proper tree care and maintenance?

Southampton is a village, not a homeowners’ association or a nanny state. Enacting an overreaching and unenforceable law would be a mistake.

I hope the trustees can see the forest for the trees.

Rob Coburn

Southampton