Where this was said
The Sixth Circuit Rules: Canton's Fee Structure Is Unconstitutional
At 16:19 · chapter starts 14:30
Chance's key legal argument before the Sixth Circuit is a proportionality claim: the Supreme Court has established that permit requirements must be proportional to the harm they seek to prevent. Canton's flat fee — the same rate regardless of whether you're removing a shade tree in a dense neighborhood or a scrubby sapling in a field — ignores that reality. In the fall of 2021, the Sixth Circuit agrees on this narrower ground: the way Canton runs its permit fees is unconstitutional. Chance's clients pay nothing. For Ann Marie Graham Hudak, the ruling is a shock she still struggles to understand. For Chance, it's a breakthrough — he believes this decision will make it far easier to challenge the permit and fee structures of cities across America. 'It's gonna open the door to expand property rights and attack a lot more of these permitting regimes,' he says.
The Supreme Court has held that permit requirements must be proportional to the harm they prevent. Chance Weldon argued that Canton's flat per-tree fee ignored the actual ecological value of individual trees — and in 2021, the Sixth Circuit agreed, ruling the fee structure unconstitutional.
In fall 2021, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Canton's one-size-fits-all tree permit fee structure was unconstitutional.
Rather than appeal to the Supreme Court, Canton Township rewrote its tree law. Developers can now hire an arborist to determine the dollar value of a tree's ecological benefits — and pay that amount instead of the city's flat fee. It's a model other cities may have to follow.
