Authorities in Oakland are considering slamming a $1m penalty on a US-based Nigerian physician, Matthew Bernard, over the alleged illegal removal of dozens of protected trees, sparking a fierce debate among city officials and environmental advocates.
The controversy centres on claims that Bernard, alongside his partner, Lynn Warner, cut down about 38 mature trees between 2021 and 2022 without securing the required permits, in what city authorities described as a breach of local environmental regulations.
Officials said the trees were felled not only on the couple’s property along Claremont Avenue in the upscale Oakland Hills, but also extended to public land and adjoining properties, raising concerns over environmental damage and public safety.
Urban forestry experts warned that the large-scale removal of the trees could heighten ecological risks, while advocacy groups have urged the council to impose the maximum penalty to deter similar violations.
“This is about protecting community resources and ensuring that no one disregards environmental laws,” one advocate said during deliberations.
However, Bernard defended his actions before the council, stating that he acted on professional advice that some of the trees posed wildfire threats.
He maintained that he made efforts to comply with regulations, a position city officials disputed, insisting that no valid permits were obtained.
The issue took a contentious turn during deliberations, as council member Carroll Fife cautioned against imposing the full fine, raising concerns about fairness and potential racial implications.
She argued that it would be troubling for a Black homeowner to face severe penalties for actions she suggested had not always been strictly enforced in the past.
But another council member, Janani Ramachandran, rejected the argument, describing it as inappropriate and insisting that the violation was clear-cut, noting that healthy oak trees are typically resistant to wildfires.
Despite lengthy deliberations, the council failed to reach a consensus, with an initial vote on the proposed $1m fine ending without a majority.
A subsequent attempt to reduce the penalty to $411,000 also stalled in a tie.
With no resolution reached, the matter has been deferred to a further sitting scheduled for May 5, where the council is expected to make a final determination.