So you are saying that if I sell my house to another person, that person cannot remove any of the native plantings?

I'm sorry but I think that would make it hard for me to sell my home (because you'd have to disclose that). Also, as someone potentially buying into that arrangement, I'd find it hard to deal with. What if the person planted a bunch of native maples ... too many ... then I'd always have them ... even though I want to diversify into other native plants instead?

And then, what if one of the native plants dies ... will that person have to prove that it died for natural reasons? People might suspect that it was poisoned with round up and the person would have to defend him/herself.

What are your ideas for mitigating these concerns?

In some areas there are laws regulating what can be done with existing trees. This is usually to protect the look of the neighborhood rather than to maintain natives, but as I posted on another thread yesterday some subdivisions do require keeping X% of yard in native plantings. Check the one in Madison, WI as an example of how this can be done. This would address poster #2's concerns. You are not required to keep a specific native plant, just keep a certain percentage of the yard planted with native plants. This covenant could be combined with tree laws to protect a savanah subdivision, for example. As far as selling the house is concerned, this is a double edged sword. It will appeal to some buyers and repell other buyers. However, if you were to actually enjoy where you lived: sitting outside and watching a red fox dissappear into the meadow, I think its well worth it. To be honest, if it keeps the riff raff out that want to let their dogs & kids run the streets all night without supervision, I'd consider this a perk rather than a detraction of value!

You're right, midwesternerr, that would address my concerns and I'd be happy to buy into that arrangement.

its just that natives are expensive if brought from a nershery and are declining in the wild- maybe it(the law) could only include natives that don't grow huge( spotted joe pie weed/maples/ect)

I think its a great idea and we ( those who are for it) should write to our city/state/DNR about this. Again this is something a person can CHOOSE to do, its a choice. A native landscape done right probably ups the value of the house anyway.

I just hope that your state's DNR is really concerned about protecting the environment and promoting native plant usage.
My experience here in Georgia indicates otherwise.
I called my state DNR about a homeowner stripping all of the vegetation from her newly aquired property, including all of it from the 50ft. buffer area adjacent to a flowing creek /no silt barrier was ever installed, even though they graded the land right up to the creek bank/ and another owner replacing a concrete driveway, disposing of the broken slabs into the same creek.
They couldn't get me off of the phone fast enough, short answers, rude treatment, etc. It was the county's responsibility to enforce the laws/regulations, I was curtly informed.
A call to my county followed, an investigation would be made, they said. End of story! Absolutely nothing was done!
Even though this violated Federal EPD Regulations and people in other states have served time in Federal prison, for less intrusion into waterways. I am really discouraged and disgusted by the lack of concern that I experienced.

I have always promoted the use of native plants and by example, grow hundreds of them in my garden. It really exasperates the occasional landscape design visitor, that everything is planted in an an area that closely approximates a plant's native habitat. So unorganized, is a frequent comment. My response is usually, "become familiar with NATURE". It is mostly woodland, so I can't grow many meadow plants. But that's OK, there's many thousands of natives that are happy in a woodland environment.

MN DNR is one of the better ones, sorry I didn't know. On their website they promote making native landscapes I think its a good idea this law esspecally if obama becomes president- he seems like more of a nature guy to me.

What concerns me most is if people don't pass something like this into law in a few thousand years they'll be no such thing as native plants!

I live in MO. The department of conservation and various environmental organizations are doing a lot to promote natives here. I thought land could be put into a land trust to keep it from being altered? Might not be very practical for a house, but if someone just buys a plot of land.....

I am a member of a land trust that is buying available property on an east coast barrier island, to prevent out-of-control development and also contribute to 2 organizations that oversee the preservation of designated natural areas.
A problem that we all face, is that BIG money talks to legislators, in the form of political contributions. In my state, it is a constant battle to prevent development or desecration of public land. All of the environmental organizations and the state association of garden clubs have formed an alliance and have a contuinuous lobbying presence at the capitol, when the legislature is in session.
All members are asked to fill the gallery, wearing green, when critical bills come up for a floor vote. So far, it seems to work!
I can't count the number of calls made and emails sent, to my representatives, to request a vote against or for certain bills that preserve and protect the environment, for present and future generations.
If your voice isn't being heard, it's time to speak louder!
Rb