Randy Alcorn: Tree-mendous Little Tyrants Have Taken Root

Santa Barbara's tree ordinance a reminder of the presence of cancerous busybodies

By Randy Alcorn | Published on 02.21.2011

Railing against the petty tyrannies of local governments here in America seems insignificant compared to the stirring efforts of the Arab world’s oppressed masses to bring down tyrannical governments there and to win freedom, civil rights and justice. But, just as having a little cancer cannot be ignored, neither can little tyrannies be ignored. Both will grow more severe, pervasive and eventually metastasize.

Ultimately, freedom, civil rights and justice are about personal choice and expression that does no real harm to others. Tyranny is about elitism, greed and self-certain opinion that insists others live their lives and make personal choices within the confines of that opinion. Those who choose otherwise are condemned as outlaws subject to punishment. Human history reveals that while freedom is almost universally desired, it is constantly under assault by competing desires for order and security. Most democracies have not been long lived, eventually eroding into some form of authoritarianism.

This process of erosion is occurring here in America where all levels of government — federal, state and local — steadily corrode constitutional rights and accrue more power, and wealth, unto themselves. Their justification for this is that the general welfare is threatened by some external or internal force, or that the general welfare can be improved by imposing restrictions on personal freedom — the busybody factor. Terrorism is an example of an external threat justification. It has given us the insidious Patriot Act and TSA muggings. The war on drugs is an example of the internal. It has given us a virtual police state with home invasions, property confiscations and massive incarcerations for victimless personal choice.

The busybody factor is often found at the local level. The city of Santa Barbara provides some of the more illustrative examples of that. This narcissistic seaside town is recognized as one of the planet’s most beautiful places. Some say it is the best place on earth. So, imagine the pressure that elected officials and the self-anointed community stewards have to conserve and polish the “best place on earth.” It is a busybody’s paradise because the justifications for meddling are ostensibly so noble and altruistic.

Nevertheless, abrogation of victimless personal choice is tyranny no matter what the justification for meddling. The lifestyle preferences, even of the majority, are not sufficient rationale to subvert the freedom of the individual. But, that is what official Santa Barbara does so well with its labyrinth of commissions, committees and boards enforcing volumes of prescriptive municipal ordinances.

One of the most egregiously intrusive of these is the city’s tree ordinance, which prohibits property owners from removing or extensively trimming their own trees that are within 30 feet of the city’s streets. The city does not own these trees. It did not buy them or pay for their nurturing and maintenance, but with this ordinance it has effectively confiscated them. The justification for this usurpation of personal freedom is that the city’s “urban forest” is an essential element of the city’s aesthetics that benefits the entire community. The individual property owner’s rights and gardening preferences are forfeit to the majority’s alleged preferences as articulated through the city’s busybodies.

If a citizen loses his or her view, or suffers falling litter, or critter infestation from his or her tree, too bad. If a citizen wants to rearrange his or her garden and remove a tree, too bad. If the busybody autocracy can impose this proscription, it can also dictate what color you must paint your house or that you must paint your house, or what kind of hedge you can plant — all justified by protecting notions of community aesthetics.

If all politics are indeed local, we can start there to stop petty tyrannies from becoming cancerous.

— Santa Barbara political observer Randy Alcorn can be contacted at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Comments

Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.

» AN50 on 02.21.11 @ 04:38 PM

Brilliant again Randy! I tire at trying to explain to people you cannot legislate behavior which is the first tool of the tyrant. But with regards to your article, as an avowed and practiced tree lover and planter, one with many crammed on his small urban plot, I find the new tree ordinance not only offensive and dangerous but overtly hypocritical as the city itself goes on one of its tree removal crusades. How can they justify this? As you said the narcissism, or better, intellectual narcissism here is unmatched. These idiots actually think they know better how I should take care of my own property? Hmmm, not in my life.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» craigallen on 02.22.11 @ 07:55 AM

Hi Randy,

I enjoyed your article on the tree trimming issue. I thought the city would go the opposite direction and require property owners to trim the trees, and if they didn’t, the city would do it for them (for a fee). The trees are out of control in this city, don’t look good because they are not properly maintained (in most cases), and are a fire threat. Beyond that, they block views because they are not kept to a reasonable height, reducing property values and the very beauty that the city seems so concerned about protecting (if you can’t see the view, who cares what it looks like?). Anyway, I enjoyed the article. I am waiting for the obligatory lawsuits to start flying, since as you rightly point out, this ordinance is a confiscation of private property by the city, without consent or compensation and it won’t stand.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» John Locke on 02.22.11 @ 09:32 AM

Once again, Randy is dead on. “Busybody” is a perfect term for the overpaid, underworked government “class” here, along with their activist nannygov supporters.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» publius on 02.23.11 @ 02:12 PM

A slightly different perspective on this article.

For Alcorn to use a “cancer” metaphor as part of his scold on private rights versus
community shared benefit is ridiculous and insulting.

Let Alcorn try a “little bit of cancer” on himself, or his family, then read some
columnist talk about tree-trimming vs. view “rights”, and see how he feels.

If you’ve ever been in various downtown SB banks and office buildings, you can
see reproductions of how the south coast looked to 17th and 18th century
explorers and travelers - a barren, brown place with almost no landscaping.

The reason the area looks “pretty” today is that generations of individuals, civic
groups, and local government, have planted and maintained lots of trees, shrubs
and flowers.

The “issues” Alcorn raises about trees vs. views are not that different from
sidewalks/tree-lawns vs. public streets and private property.

The transition from publicly funded-maintained-regulated streets to private
homes and driveways is in the privately owned-publicly reponsible setback
area that Alcorn mocks ... even though that intrinsically American system has
worked well for many generations.

The reason that “government permits” are required is the same reason that any
peculiar law exists - in response to totally irresponsible people who did things
very badly.

Butchering rare or specimen trees to “improve views” has been a tool for land
speculators for years now.

Given how many “crews” float around without license, certification, or even legal
residency privileges, it’s not surprising that a “clean-up” can become a major
“trim”, and a “trim” can become so excessive that the trees die, or become hazard for toppling onto vehicles and people in the public streets.

One can only respect Alcorn’s articulate absolute libertarian defense of personal
rights and liberties. But occasionally he takes little things so out of proportion
that he loses sight of why they exist, and why they work, in the first place.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.