Folk singer

Judy Collins sang a number back in the '60s (or was it

the '70s?) called "Both Sides Now."

The first

verse was about the pros and cons of clouds, but it

applies as well to trees.

I've always

been a lover of trees. As a youth, I wiled away many an

hour nestled in the arms of a great oak in the woods

behind our home, nibbling on the tart apples that grew in

an old, untended orchard nearby and watching the wildlife

that most people never see when they're in the woods

because they're never still and quiet long enough.

In an age

of air-conditioning, we don't think much about the

cooling effect of trees, but if you're outside on a hot

day, walking from direct sunlight into the shelter of a

dense grove can be almost as much of a relief as going

inside.

And

aesthetically, you'll never convince me that the beach is

better than the forest. The ocean has its own charm, but

I could spend the rest of my life next to a singing brook

surrounded by old-growth forest, and I'd be quite

content.

I'm too old

to climb trees now, though I occasionally do it anyway.

And the trees that surround my house, though I dearly

love to look at them, have become my enemies in a way.

A back

injury made picking up acorns to keep them from killing

my lawn so painful that I've taken to doing it lying

down. Can't rake them because I've replanted the lawn and

the grass is far too tender. I spent three hours in a

space five feet wide and 40 feet long and filled a

four-gallon bucket to brimming, and a week later you

couldn't even tell I'd done it.

I had to

pay someone several hundred dollars last year to remove a

poplar that had grown up and severely damaged my fence,

and there are other trees that will have to go for one

maintenance-related reason or another, at equally great

expense.

I'll spend

hundreds of hours this fall, or pay someone if I can

manage it, dealing with the fallen limbs, leaves, etc.,

and again next spring washing pollen off the windows and

deck, and vacuuming hickory nut hulls out of the swimming

pool - the branches closest to the pool seem to be

where the neighborhood squirrels most enjoy having their

communal meals.

Gradually,

as I can afford it, I'm trying to relandscape the place

with a little less grass and more room for the trees, and

some other ideas I have for cutting down on the

maintenance. I still love trees and don't want to lose

more than is necessary, but because I've seen the problem

from both sides, I do have a new perspective on efforts

in Fayette to write laws that make it harder for land

owners to do away with fine old specimen trees.

Sometimes,

if you want to build a home or a store or office

building, you just can't avoid doing away with some

trees, even the ones that aren't in the space where you

want to put the building and parking lot.

And if the

amount of space you're able to devote to a large old tree

is too small, it's going to die anyway and you might as

well take it down during construction and plant something

that fits.

Then again,

some builders don't like trees at all. They're nothing

but obstacles to be removed. Saving them is just way too

much trouble, and if you do save a few, they're nothing

but a maintenance problem once the project is finished.

Industrial

developers like to bulldoze a site, often years before

they plan to do any building. They say it's because the

land sells better if it's stripped and ready to build on.

Nonsense.

You might

be thinking that what people do with the trees on their

own property is nobody's business but their own. If

that's the case, we need to completely rethink what we're

doing in our local governments, because the books are

full of regulations designed to make the developments

within our communities aesthetically pleasing.

We seem to

have accepted the idea that, if you're going to use your

property to earn a profit from the community, then you

have to do it in such a way that it adds to that

community, as opposed to subtracting from it.

As long as

the federal government keeps its bony nose out of the

process, I have no problem with that concept.

Fayetteville

and Fayette County officials are making themselves

googly-eyed trying to write rules that will save more

trees, but without being unreasonable. If you go too far

on the unreasonableness scale, the law can't be defended

in court, so it's useless.

For

instance, Fayetteville planners were upset recently

because they went to great lengths to force a company to

preserve more trees in a project, but when the builders

started work, they removed the protective fence that had

been put around one of the trees and ran heavy equipment

over its roots all day long, then replaced the fence as

if nothing had happened.

That's

probably a dead tree now. The question is whether the

builders could have gotten their heavy equipment into the

site without moving the fence. If not, then maybe forcing

them to redesign the entire project to make space for

that tree was unreasonable. If so, the law needs teeth to

punish the builders for violating the tree-save area.

The problem

facing the planners is how to write a law that would

punish builders and developers sufficiently so they won't

"accidentally" kill any more big trees, but

won't force them to save a tree at all if they simply

couldn't work the construction around it.

Fayetteville

tabled its new tree law this week, but both city and

county expect to get their new laws on the books soon.

Then we'll

see how well they did.

<!-------------