Touche. I was trying to be facetious and it backfired.
Since you are new, we forgive you. You will find that many of us cannot spell or type. Luckily for you people I now have a running spellcheck program in my browser. People used to look at what I wrote and say "what an idiot" until they became able to decipher my phonetic usage (with Kenny it's phonetic and frenetic)
As for the gov'mint interference, it is usually a reaction to over-development. Here is Franklin, WI they have taken the view that the property owner is the caretaker of the land and does not have the right to do whatever they please. This is because the actions will effect the surrounding community. The easy example is where a developer comes in and clearcuts an old woodlot because it is easier to install B&B stock after everything is done.
Another example is when Mr. T bought a home in an upscale Chicogoland suburb and topped all the old trees on the property, I understand he was fined then lost in court.
One problem we have in Franklin is that these ordinances in the UDO are cobbled together, borrowed from other cities. They are specific to contractors and have no method for a small landowner to do any sustainable use practices. Green is good, so if you cut down an 8 inch buckthorn, it is as bad as an 8 inch white oak. That is being worked on though.
If you move into a wooded development, and the neighbor next door decides he wants to cut down all his big trees to put in grass, this may effect you property value. It does effect the urban forest and the micro climate/ecology.
It goes hand in hand with setbacks and limits on square-footage and sofas on the front porch.
Many people like to live where abandoned cars an block are considered lawn ornaments. If one is not in that type of community, the neighbors should be protected from these types of actions.
I for one would never live where I could not park in the driveway and keep my garagedoor open. I do not have any problem with land-usage controls on indiscriminate removal of large trees
