By Christa L. Floresca

California is riddled with REAL problems. Energy shortages, over-crowding, inadequate educational and health systems, billions of dollars in budget deficits, constant and surmounting grid-lock, border control issues, and ambient air that is more polluted than some new car's emissions, the list goes on and on. Voters and tax-payers are bombarded with the 'flavor of the month" plan to cure all of California's woes.

The latest of the ridiculous proposals comes from groups like Ralph Nader, the Rainforest Action Network, Greenpeace, and Julia Butterfly Hill. It's a ballot initiative that radical environmentalists are desperately attempting to add to the California ballot in November. The "Heritage Tree Preservation Act" would designate trees older than the state of California as a "Heritage Tree," protecting it and atleast 50 feet surrounding it. We aren't talking about Federal lands here, we are talking about private property, people's backyards.

To make the story even worse, they are asking that a separate fund in the State Treasury be set up whose sole purpose is to purchase the land, title, or interests in property of "heritage trees" and "heritage tree buffer zones." As if budget deficits nationwide were not bad enough, now they are asking that specific individual trees are purchased away from rightful land owners. I am quite certain that when the Founders added clauses into the Bill of Rights that protect citizens from being stripped of their property without just compensation, this is NOT what they had in mind.

The practice of purchasing individual trees to "preserve" them has most notably taken place in California when after a 738 day trespassing tree-sit, Julia Butterfly Hill was allowed to purchase "Luna", a redwood tree, from the rightful land owners. Are we ready to extend the practice of purchasing 50 foot sections of land, from a fund that is has to be administered by the state?

The tip of the lunacy iceberg is the additional provisions in the ballot proposition that would allow individuals to begin civil actions against anyone who violates it. That's right ... individuals can personally gain from a violation of this Act, even if they have not been harmed. Think about the potential. One violation of this statute could result in lawsuits from people who have no damages and no injuries. In our legal system, one of the measures of whether or not a suit is legitimate comes from showing that someone was personally injured or harmed by the actions of another. Allowing random people to arbitrarily sue for actions resulting in no harm to them would be a severe tearing of the fabric of our justice system.

And what about the costs? Taxpayers should not be held responsible for the ideology of a radical few. The State of California estimates that this Act will reduce their tax revenues by approximately $10 million annually, in addition to the half million dollar annual administrative costs to ensure compliance. California also estimates that "potentially major" costs would be incurred for property owners who successfully sue the State for loss of private property rights due to the Act's restrictions. The State of California has run operating deficits in 13 of the past 24 years. Currently, California's deficit is an astonishing $12.5 Billion! Is it sound economic policy to begin thinking about buying up the state, 50 feet at a time?

Another important issue that the environmental activists fail to examine are the economic and social impacts associated with these ridiculous laws. In some states, the taxes and revenue from the timber industry are used to support important social and educational programs. In Ohio for example, 18 school districts received more than $743,000 total in proceeds to fund educational programs and purchase books for school children.

The good news is that property owners, businesses and the state governments are beginning to wise up. Corporations are considering suing trespassers and activists for lost revenues. One state may attempt to pass the lost revenue from disruptive activist activity on to the activists themselves. The Oregon Department of Forestry, who uses proceeds from timber sales to support public school programs and local town firefighters, is considering charging law-breaking activists for the loss of revenues resulting from their antics. It's about time that the rest of the country followed Oregon's example and put an end to the lunacy.

###

Christa L. Floresca is the Director of Development at Frontiers of Freedom Institute, a non-profit, non-partisan public policy organization dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of all Americans and restoring constitutional limits on the extent and power of government. You may email the author at cfloresca@ff.org