Is it possible to value urban trees and oppose a tree-preservation ordinance? It certainly is if the ordinance in question is Lake Oswego’s, which the Bend City Council will discuss tonight. Lake Oswego’s preservation requirements are – how should we say this? – dreadful, and before even thinking about adopting them here councilors must demonstrate that the problem they’d solve is worse than the cure itself.

Though Bend’s new development code contains tree-preservation measures aimed at developers, it leaves individual homeowners free to remove trees without seeking the city’s blessing. Such freedom makes sense, at least until homeowners in large numbers start playing Paul Bunyan in their own backyards. As far as we know, this isn’t happening. Nevertheless, Councilor John Hummel wants the city to adopt preservation regulations for everyone, developer and homeowner alike. So tonight, the City Council will discuss an ordinance that Lake Oswego should have called the Meddling Neighbor Empowerment Act.

Homeowners there may still cut down very small trees without asking anyone’s permission. To fell trees between 5 and 10 inches in diameter at breast height, though, they must have a “type 1” permit, which, to be fair, is easy to get. The process gets much trickier for anyone who wants to cut down more than two small trees per year or any single tree larger than 10 dbh.

In such cases, homeowners must secure a “type 2” permit, which requires them to demonstrate all kinds of things: that the removal won’t cause erosion problems, for instance, that it won’t affect neighborhood “character” and property values and – absurdly – that it isn’t for the sole purpose of providing or enhancing views. When the trees have been cut, homeowners must plant a new tree for each felled one.

But that’s not all. Applicants for type 2 permits must also announce to the world that they’re about to commit arborcide. They must complete a written notice of the impending tree death or deaths, which the city helpfully mails to neighborhood groups. They must post a sign on their property in an area visible to passing vehicles, tie a yellow ribbon around every doomed trunk, then wait for two weeks for the city to receive public comment.

That’s still not all. Following tentative approval of a tree-removal application, the city posts a yellow sign proclaiming the deadline for requesting a hearing. The sign stays put for another two weeks, after which the applicant may swing his ax … unless someone appeals.

The property owner himself may appeal, of course, if his initial application is denied. When that happens, the city adorns his property with a red sign, which stays there until the hearing takes place. If Nathaniel Hawthorne were writing today, he’d know what to do with that.

Permit appeals go before the Community Forestry Commission (we suppose we’ll need one of those, too). Tomorrow, in fact, the forestry commission will hear an appeal of a tentatively approved type 2 permit to cut down a pair of trees. One of them, city staff note, is decayed, and therefore a good home for tree-killing insects. A neighbor is appealing the permit anyway.

Does Bend really want to go there? We certainly hope not. Just weeks ago, it rashly adopted a terribly flawed mobile home park ordinance borrowed from Wilsonville. Here’s hoping that was an aberration. A responsible council would demonstrate that a tree-preservation ordinance that applies to homeowners is necessary in the first place. If it is, then the council should adopt the least intrusive solution it can find. The search for that solution, by the way, won’t lead to Lake Oswego.