The Trees That Cost You Money: How Hayward’s New Ordinance Puts Property Owners in the Crosshairs

The gavel fell at 10:06 p.m. on August 19, 2025, and with it, Hayward property owners lost another slice of their constitutional rights. In a unanimous 7-0 vote that should alarm every taxpayer who values private property, the Hayward City Council rammed through sweeping changes to the city’s tree preservation ordinance — changes that will cost residents thousands while expanding government control over their own backyards.

What happened that Tuesday night wasn’t just another routine city council meeting. It was a masterclass in how progressive politicians use environmental rhetoric to justify regulatory overreach that hits homeowners where it hurts most: their wallets.

The Green Smokescreen

The new ordinance, buried in the bureaucratic language of Resolution 25-153 and 25-154, fundamentally rewrites Chapter 10, Article 15 of Hayward’s Municipal Code. City officials dressed it up as “establishing new regulatory guidelines for the designation, removal and mitigation of protected trees.” What they didn’t emphasize was how these “guidelines” translate into real costs for real families.

Under the updated regulations, property owners now face expanded restrictions on which trees they can remove from their own land, more complex permitting processes, and steeper mitigation requirements when tree removal is approved. The council also quietly approved amendments to the 2026 Master Fee Schedule — bureaucrat-speak for “we’re raising the prices on permits you’ll now be forced to buy.”

Five residents spoke during the public hearing, including Peggy Guernsey, Sandra Frost, Randy Waage, Tyler Dragoni, and Mimi Dean. Their concerns fell on deaf ears as the council marched lockstep toward expanding city control over private property.

The Real Cost of Government “Protection”

Here’s what Hayward’s politicians won’t tell you: every new “protected tree” designation is a direct transfer of wealth from property owners to city coffers. When a homeowner wants to remove a tree that’s damaging their foundation, blocking solar panels, or creating safety hazards, they now face a gauntlet of fees, studies, and mitigation requirements that can easily run into thousands of dollars.

The ordinance expansion comes at a time when Hayward residents are already struggling with the highest cost of living in decades. Yet rather than focusing on core government functions like public safety and infrastructure, the council chose to prioritize environmental virtue signaling that makes homeownership even more expensive.

Consider the mathematics of municipal overreach: if just 100 property owners per year need tree removal permits under the new regulations, and each faces an average of $2,000 in additional fees and mitigation costs, that’s $200,000 annually extracted from residents’ pockets. Multiply that by the thousands of properties in Hayward, and you’re looking at a hidden tax that could reach into the millions.

The Constitutional Question

What’s most troubling about the council’s action isn’t just the financial burden — it’s the precedent. When government can dictate what vegetation you’re allowed to remove from your own property, we’ve crossed a line that the Founding Fathers never intended to be crossed.

The Fifth Amendment guarantees that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. Yet Hayward’s new tree ordinance essentially creates conservation easements on private land without paying property owners a dime. It’s regulatory taking disguised as environmental protection.

Mayor Mark Salinas, Council Members Julie Roche, George Syrop, Ray Bonilla Jr, Francisco Zermeno, Daniel Goldstein, and Angela Andrews all voted to expand this government overreach. Not one of them questioned whether the city has the constitutional authority to impose such restrictions on private property. Not one asked about the cumulative financial impact on working families.

The Bigger Picture

This tree ordinance is part of a broader pattern of progressive governance that prioritizes ideological goals over taxpayer welfare. While Hayward faces real challenges — aging infrastructure, public safety concerns, and fiscal pressures — the council spent precious time and resources expanding tree regulations that will generate revenue for the city while burdening residents.

The timing is particularly galling. As California families struggle with inflation, housing costs, and economic uncertainty, Hayward’s leaders chose to make homeownership even more expensive and complicated. Every new permit requirement, every additional fee, every expanded regulation is another barrier between residents and the American dream of property ownership.

What Happens Next

The ordinance will take effect after final passage, creating immediate impacts for property owners across Hayward. Residents planning tree removal should act quickly, as projects begun before the new rules take effect may be grandfathered under current regulations.

More importantly, this vote reveals which elected officials prioritize government control over individual rights. When election time comes, Hayward voters should remember who stood with bureaucratic expansion and who stood with property owners. The 7-0 vote means every single council member bears responsibility for this assault on private property rights.

The tree preservation ordinance isn’t really about trees — it’s about control. It’s about a city government that believes it knows better than property owners how to manage their own land. And it’s about politicians who are more concerned with environmental posturing than with the constitutional rights and financial welfare of the people they’re supposed to serve.

Hayward residents deserve better than elected officials who hide tax increases behind environmental rhetoric. They deserve leaders who understand that private property rights are fundamental to American liberty, and that every new regulation comes with real costs for real families.

The trees may be protected, but your property rights aren’t. And that should worry every taxpayer in Hayward.