Kudos to Smithfield Councilman David Barbour. Normally a fan of rules and regulations, he drew the line at mandating that developers plant trees and shrubs in the yards of new single-family homes.

Of course, it’s also true that Mr. Barbour helped pave the road to the tree-and-shrub mandate. Turned off by the prospect of seeing families enjoying their backyards as he cruised along Smithfield streets, he championed berms between the backyards and their roadway neighbors.

It wasn’t a leap then for a council majority to require developers to plant trees and shrubs at new single-family homes. Never mind that trees and shrubs cost money that adds to the price of a home. Never mind that buyers might not like the plants a developer chooses.

Smithfield’s obsession with landscaping began, as best we can tell, with East River, a new subdivision with lots of homes on small lots on what was a rural stretch of Booker Dairy Road.

The contrast between East River and its closest neighbor was striking, and the council began to worry that its rules fell short of adequately screening one neighbor from another.

Which helps explain Mr. Barbour’s fondness for berms and other screening measures. But he was right to oppose requiring landscaping in yards of single-family homes. First, the requirement does nothing to screen new subdivisions from their established neighbors, which seemed to be the council’s chief concern. Second, amid rising housing prices, it needlessly adds to the cost of a home, especially if a buyer rips it all up to plant something else. Finally, the mandate ignores the fact that a homeowner can plant his own trees and shrubs if he’s unhappy with the look of his new neighbors.

Smithfield is suffering growing pains, so it’s trying to find the right balance between accommodating growth and protecting established homes. That’s a noble goal that the landscape mandate doesn’t help accomplish.