"Nothing is safe when the legislature is in session," is a mantra moaned every two years when watching lawmakers slash and burn social and environmental protections. But this year's session has outdone itself on every front. Like sulking children, a massive majority of legislators seem to have been throwing a collective hissy by passing spiteful bills just because they can.
Fayetteville's contrary ways have long been a thorn in the side of some legislators, who don't want to see our example catch on around the state. For instance, in 2019 our City Council, in a little beginner effort to try and bring some of our plastic pollution under control, passed a ban on expanded polystyrene foam containers classified as "single use."
Plastic reminds me of the weight gain warning, "A second on the lips; forever on the hips." Consumer warning labels on this man-made nightmare should read, "A few minutes in use; forever environmental abuse." Of course, polystyrene is just one of countless plastic formulas concocted from fossil fuels that are tossed onto the world stage. Plastic trash chokes waterways and wildlife and breaks down into nanoparticles, which we consume in water and food. And plastics made from fossil fuels never really go away no matter how small the parts become.
With the excuse that such local action on plastic would somehow impact "uniformity in commerce" across the state, Rep. David Ray, R-Maumelle, decided this session was a great time to make sure plastic should trump environmental well-being.
His bill passed. So much for local autonomy in deciding what's best for the health, safety and welfare of a town by its own residents. I smell Big Plastic burning in the background of this issue. They probably caught wind of this tiny threat to their freedom to pollute. That's just a hunch, but one honed over decades of watching corporate ethics at work. Or maybe Rep. Ray simply had nothing better to do than mind Fayetteville's business.
Smashing our container law was just a warm-up appetizer for poking Earth Day in the eye. On April 22, Senate Bill 634, a bill "to prohibit state agencies, counties, and municipalities from restricting the right of a landowner to perform tree maintenance on the landowner's property," passed the state senate.
The title sounds reasonable, doesn't it? The trouble is that it's not really about maintenance. There are no known ordinances in the state that prevent property owners from pruning, maintaining, or removing trees on their own home or business property, so the bill title is a red herring from the get-go. In reality this bill would gut tree ordinance goals for mitigating tree removal in large-scale developments.
It would also prevent requirements for tree protection and preservation. For example, clear-cutting a grove of 100-year-old trees would be perfectly all right, when no landscape ordinances legally exist to modify and design ways to save a percentage of trees on developing sites.
Cities would also be prevented from requiring green buffer zones between businesses and neighborhoods, pitting these clashing entities against each other even more often. There would no longer be protection for historic or highly significant trees having qualities of size, age, species, location, etc., nor municipal incentives for shaping aesthetic values in citywide programs.
In addition, urban forestry efforts to address the severe heating of cities would find it harder to mitigate the consequences of massive clearing of shade trees. Cities produce more greenhouse gases than rural areas so for carbon capture as much vegetation as possible needs to be squeezed in between roads, parking lots and structures. This awful bill, SB 634, would cripple land-use planning as urbanization is skyrocketing in Northwest Arkansas.
Republican Sen. Bart Hester's occupation is listed as "real estate and construction," which probably would explain a bias if he has one. Being from Cave Springs, he is seeing and probably participating in the growth explosion in this part of the state. His several attempts in other sessions at axing tree protections may indicate he, like many developers, has a long held disdain for such regulations.
Republican Rep. Robin Lundstrum of Elm Springs, whose occupation is property management, is this bill's sponsor now that it's in the House.
This bill was referred to the Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs on Monday to determine if it will be passed on to the full House for a final vote. If the House continues in session, please phone or email your representative (information at https://www.arkansashouse.org/representatives/members) and as many others as you can, to vote against SB 643. The trees thank you.