When Robert Herbst returned to his hometown, about 30 miles north of New York City, in 1992, he wanted his children to be immersed in the lush greenery of his youth. But over the decades, he watched as more trees were cut down to make way for larger homes.
Herbst, an attorney, and other like-minded residents of Mamaroneck, New York, see the disappearing trees as a serious threat in the era of climate change.
“We should be protecting trees for our own survival,” said Jacob Levitt, a dermatologist who lives in Mamaroneck. “It’s suicidal not to.”
Sign up for the New York Times morning newsletter
However, some residents believe they should have the right to remove all trees on their property to make room for more sunlight, to expand their home, or simply because they want them gone.
“People want to design their yards the way they want,” says Eve Neuman, a real estate agent who lives in the area.
The debate has intensified recently due to a new law that expands municipal oversight over where and when trees can be cut down.
Mamaroneck’s old tree law, written in the 1980s, required permits only for tree removal on lots 20,000 square feet and larger. The new measure, enacted in February, requires permits on smaller lots that make up about 80 percent of the city covered by the law.
Homeowners no longer have to explain their removal requests, describe the trees, or let their neighbors know that a permit has been issued. Instead, they must either replace the removed trees or get permission to donate $300 per tree to a planting fund. No permit is required to remove hazardous or dead trees, which could become a hazard. Otherwise, small properties can remove up to three trees per year; larger properties can remove up to seven.
“It’s just a regulated way to cut down trees,” said Andrea Hirsch, a local attorney representing a group of tree activists challenging the new law in court. She added that the new law no longer requires an environmental review for removals, and that homeowners can get permission to exceed the annual limit if trees are blocking a desired use of the property, such as putting a swing set in the backyard.
Some homeowners support the law but say it goes too far. “My property, my trees,” wrote John Phillipson, a longtime resident, in an online comment, adding: “We are already over-regulated by the government.”
The lawsuit is ongoing and both parties are due back in court later this month.
With Long Island Sound to the east and two major rivers flowing through the city, Mamaroneck has a flooding problem. But it’s also a popular place to live: The median price for single-family homes sold this year is about $1.5 million. The city is part of Westchester County, a suburban area in southeastern New York that is experiencing continued, intense development.
Across Westchester, tree cover — the amount of leaves and branches that shade the ground — is declining, according to a 2022 study led by Andrew Reinmann, an assistant professor at the CUNY Advanced Science Research Center and Hunter College. He spoke at a public meeting in Mamaroneck during deliberations on the tree bill.
According to Reinmann, in 2021, tree canopy in Mamaroneck had declined to about 41% of the city’s land area, a troubling loss of about 7% since 2011.
“As tree canopy cover decreases, you see tangible increases in local temperatures and greater reliance on electricity to cool homes and buildings,” he said. Trees provide shade, catch rain and return moisture to the air.
But some homeowners in Mamaroneck are annoyed by what they have to do.
Since a condominium was built in the 1990s on an empty field behind Phillipson’s home, flooding in his backyard has gotten worse and shaded his vegetable garden, he said. To get more sunlight, he removed two trees from his property, he said, adding that he could do so without getting permits. And he’d like to keep that right.
“I would like to see the law become more flexible and homeowners be given the opportunity to do what they need to do,” said Phillipson, a retiree who bought his home in Mamaroneck 40 years ago.
The debate over how to balance environmental concerns and property rights is growing, said Max Besbris, a sociology professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who specializes in housing and climate change. “There’s a very real fear” about best practices, he said, especially since a home is the largest purchase many people will ever make.
The new tree law was introduced because the city’s environmental advisory group was concerned about the increasing number of trees being cut down as a result of rising temperatures and flooding.
City Supervisor Jaine Elkind Eney, who is also a real estate attorney, went to work with her four board members. “It was a lot of give and take,” she said.
But when the council unanimously passed the new law, there was a storm of protest from tree activists, who argued that the new measure had made it too easy to remove trees and that the annual limits were too generous, while older trees, which have a major impact on the environment, had lost some of their protection.
The new law does include a scale for the number of replacement trees that must be planted for each tree that is removed. For example, a mature tree with a trunk diameter of more than 1.5 feet would have to be replaced with four young trees.
“We will increase the tree canopy, but that will only happen over time,” said Elkind Eney.
Frank Buddingh’, a local arborist, said replacing one old tree with four new trees is not an equal exchange. To produce as much oxygen as a 100-year-old tree that has been cut down — with its carbon storage capacity and extensive crown and root system — hundreds of young trees are needed, he said.
In Westchester County, about half of all municipalities have tree laws. New York and most other states place the responsibility on municipalities to devise tree regulations for private and public lands, while most public forests are regulated by state and federal agencies.
Buddingh’ wants trees to be seen as valuable resources that should be protected and regulated, just like air, he said. “They should be on an asset list, not an expense list,” he said.
c. 2024 The New York Times Company