Stumper
One Man Band
Hmm. Yep, "Free" up the bureaucrat. But what does it cost the treeowner? TANSTAFL
All right Mega City!!!!
- Thread starter John Stewart
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
SilverBlue
Addicted to ArboristSite
Originally the bylaw was intended to control landowners / contractors who would tear down an old house and remove an established tree, due to the hot real estate market , the cities found that too many valuable trees were lost in the quest for profit, generally homeowners here are more responsible as they know the value to their property. Still a contractor can still apply to have x amount of trees destroyed yet must replace such with a similar species of certain trunk caliper. A good move but no protection for established trees in need of maintenance and who are susceptible to Mr. Hackemoff & son.
Originally posted by Stumper
Hmm. Yep, "Free" up the bureaucrat. But what does it cost the treeowner? TANSTAFL
I feel the same way about bureaucracy as you. At least they don't need as many foresters because the private sector is making the house calls. IMHO homeowners get more bang for their buck hiring an arborist periodically than paying for more full time city foresters. Whats TANSTAFL?
Stumper
One Man Band
TANSTAAFL-(I inadvertantly left out an a in my previous post.). A great acronym that comes to us from Robert Heinlein-Libertarian and renowned Science Fiction author. In his book "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" the by-word of the Lunar colonists was TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Meaning of course that everything has costs and consequences and you had better pay attention.
I agree that the owner is probably better off with a qualified practicing arborist compared to the city Forrester when getting advice about his trees. But now instead of being aggravated with a $7 permit fee and meeting with the city Forrester. The owner has to pay for the CA's time filling out a report plus the permit fee. Of course the city Forrester still has his job. The city still claims the right to dictate what the owner can and cannot do and the citizen is paying for it all.
I agree that the owner is probably better off with a qualified practicing arborist compared to the city Forrester when getting advice about his trees. But now instead of being aggravated with a $7 permit fee and meeting with the city Forrester. The owner has to pay for the CA's time filling out a report plus the permit fee. Of course the city Forrester still has his job. The city still claims the right to dictate what the owner can and cannot do and the citizen is paying for it all.
Similar threads
