Residents of Franklin Park expressed strong opposition to a proposed tree ordinance during a recent government meeting, raising concerns about property rights, potential financial impacts, and perceived inconsistencies in the borough's approach to tree management.

The ordinance aims to regulate tree removal on parcels exceeding 10 acres, with critics arguing it unfairly targets larger property owners while allowing smaller parcels to be cleared without restriction. Regina Hartman, a lifelong resident, questioned the fairness of the ordinance, highlighting that many property owners did not receive timely notifications about the meeting. She emphasized that those who have paid taxes on their land for decades should have the right to manage their own properties without excessive government interference.

Duane Wist, another resident, voiced frustration over the lack of representation from elected officials regarding the ordinance, claiming it devalued his property significantly. He suggested that if the borough continues to impose such restrictions, he might resort to clear-cutting his land to maximize its value for future development.

Several speakers pointed out the apparent double standard in the borough's actions, noting that while the ordinance seeks to protect trees, the borough itself is involved in tree removal projects in local parks. Jill Hartman criticized the council for dictating how property owners manage their land, arguing that individuals should have the freedom to use their property as they see fit, whether for recreation or agriculture.

Legal concerns were also raised, with attorney John Linkoskie arguing that the ordinance could be seen as unconstitutional due to its vague language and discriminatory nature. He questioned the rationale behind the 10-acre threshold and suggested that the ordinance could discourage development, ultimately harming the community's economic interests.

In response to the public outcry, borough officials defended the ordinance as a necessary measure to manage development and protect the environment. They clarified that the regulations would only apply to subdivisions and land developments, not to individual property owners acting independently.

As the meeting concluded, many residents urged the council to reconsider the ordinance, emphasizing the need for clearer communication and a more equitable approach to land management that respects property rights while addressing environmental concerns.