"Tree Abuse" Article in WSJ

Wesspur
shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
L

logbutcher

Addicted to ArboristSite
Joined
Apr 22, 2004
Messages
2,411
Reaction score
377
Location
Maine
The Wall Street Journal, 21 December 2007, had an article called "Step Away From The Chippers" in the Weekend Journal section. Difficult to believe the regs and laws and restrictions on homewoner's own trees. KInd of an eminent domain takeover.
Here's the link, sorry, I can't figure out how the A.S. "Manage Attachment" works. Step in techno geeks or moderator to hold my hand.......... :dizzy: Just cut and paste the link below if you want to read the full article.


http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB119819902857243631-lMyQjAxMDE3OTI4NzEyOTc5Wj.html
 
What in the H3ll is this country coming to.....?

Do we really start fining people for taking care of their property?

And who the F:censored: makes this kind of legislation??? :confused:

And who lets them get away with it???

:chainsaw: :angry: :bang:
 
Erick said:
What in the H3ll is this country coming to.....?

Do we really start fining people for taking care of their property?

And who the F:censored: makes this kind of legislation??? :confused:

And who lets them get away with it???

:chainsaw: :angry: :bang:
Click to expand...

Oh my.... what an angry outburst. You should have your arms confiscated.
 
I could not get the article to load properly so I haven't read it. Here you can not take down any tree over 14"DBH without a permit. It is considered a "heritage tree". And no you will likely be turned down. This even applies to weed trees like eucalyptus or acacia, or even Monterey Pine dying of pitch canker. I have a good relationship with the City arborist have have nearly been fined. All fines must be paid up front before any hearing is allowed and yes the defendant is considered guilty before going to a hearing. If you "pass" the hearing and are not found at fault then you will be placed on pprobation for a year after paying $100.00 for the hearing.

Any group of 3 or more trees regardless of size is considered a grove of trees. This means you can not cut down 3 apple trees in your backyard without a permit. And again you may not get a permit. You are allowed to trim up to 25% of a tree without a permit but you can count on someone calling the City and filing a complaint. The City arborist will then conduct a warrantless search of your private property and can confiscate ALL your tree equipment up to and including your truck. The City has plainly stated that a suspected offender is guilty until proven innocent. In my opinion they look at the "asset forfiture" laws regarding drugs with envy.

The County recently passed a law that goes into effect a few days from now BANNING logging on any parcel under 40 acres in size. They wanted to ban logging on parcels under 80 acres but settled for 40. There was no vote on this issue by the people, just the 5 County Supervisors. The vote was 3 to 2. People who have cared for their land and counted on the timber as their nest egg have lost everything they have worked for. The County has said it will NOT lower their property tax bill to reflect the loss of value.

Things are only going to get worse here because of our large college student population and the unwillingness of our "local newspaper" to print the facts. The hippies have taken over the asylum.

BTW the City has just hired a "Global Warming Czar", their words. I imagine all wood burning and backyard barbeques are on the endangered list. The City has stated its desire to reduce the carbon footprint of all the citizens under its control.
 
If you think that is bad, check this link

javascript:follow('http://www.rimoftheworld.net/columns/neufeld/fuels')
 
That is kind of extreme really, I know when we built our house here in Ireland the planning dept wanted to have us catalogue and identify every single tree on the property!
They are really taking things to the extreme with this kind of attitude, don't get me wrong I love trees for many reasons but forcing people to live next to dangerous trees is nonsensical and makes people turn against green policy.
If a house was damaged by a tree that was refused permission to be felled, would the homeowner have a legitimate claim against the council?
 
I think that if you stop some one from cutting plants in order to protect themselves, you should be liable and accountable for your actions.
 
joesawer said:
I think that if you stop some one from cutting plants in order to protect themselves, you should be liable and accountable for your actions.
Click to expand...

Yep thats my take on the situation too.
Thats plain nuts not allowing the forest service to create firebreaks.
I am not sure if you remember a few years ago, large tracts of suburban Australia were burnt to the ground because local greenies stopped the fire dept from burning back the undergrowth.
AFAIK the natural way for forests to prevent fires is for periodic wildfires to clear dead growth away.
 
I forgot to ad that shrubs are protected in a way similar to trees. You can not remove any shrub, hedge, etc that is large or old or desired by a neighbor without a permit. You can not trim a hedge significantly without a permit.

Woe be to you if you have a stream running through your back yard. Warrantless searches are the order of the day. A person can call 911 and report a sispicious odor or activity and you will find City personell walking through your property looking for the source. Generally the police won't be doing this but Parks and Recreation will enter your property with attitude. The riparian zone is I believe 150' from the bank of a stream which means no constrution without a lengthy, as in years, planning process. Your house may have 4 or 5 houses and a street between it and a stream channel but you are considered to be in the riparian zone. My house is in just that situation along with being in a sensitive archealogical area. I can put in a fence post without a permit but not a shade stucture supported by 4 fence posts without a permit and having an achealogist and an Indian on site during the digging. I'm taliking about 4 holes 8" in diameter and 3 feet deep.
 
2dogs said:
I forgot to ad that shrubs are protected in a way similar to trees. You can not remove any shrub, hedge, etc that is large or old or desired by a neighbor without a permit. You can not trim a hedge significantly without a permit.

Woe be to you if you have a stream running through your back yard. Warrantless searches are the order of the day. A person can call 911 and report a sispicious odor or activity and you will find City personell walking through your property looking for the source. Generally the police won't be doing this but Parks and Recreation will enter your property with attitude. The riparian zone is I believe 150' from the bank of a stream which means no constrution without a lengthy, as in years, planning process. Your house may have 4 or 5 houses and a street between it and a stream channel but you are considered to be in the riparian zone. My house is in just that situation along with being in a sensitive archealogical area. I can put in a fence post without a permit but not a shade stucture supported by 4 fence posts without a permit and having an achealogist and an Indian on site during the digging. I'm taliking about 4 holes 8" in diameter and 3 feet deep.
Click to expand...

I would have never believed to extent and stupidity of the laws in CA if I had not moved here. The stream and water course rules are so open to interpretation that I have scene a walking trail through the grass that was worn down to the dirt, flagged out as a water course protection zone, but a skid trail marked through a ditch. Freaking genius.
Anything over 50 years old is considered an arch site, So a fifty year old trash dump, or refuse pile or set of tire ruts, scrap of rusty metal, barbed wire fence, etc, is protected. Alaska is looking better and better.
 
have dealt with low grade city boooreaucrat pukes with an attitude before...."you get your punk ass off my friggin property before i decide you are a threat to my family." go talk to your city attorney and ask how he wants to defend this harassment suit....read the riot act to a codes inspector awhile back..

but then, I did have a point...they violated my civil rights...ya wanta be careful what you accuse folks of...

they left me alone.


and then i got smart and moved to the sticks. I live closer to michael vicks house than to town...and my neighbors are extremely cool.
 
Gee Whiz

Different strokes for different folks, but I couldn't live somewhere like that.

A lot of the hostility must come from folks not being neighborly. Then they let non-neighborly folks get elected... then next thing ya know, Harry :censored: Homeowner is a Violator. I'd cite some specifics from Mum's little corner of Hell (Norfolk MA) but it's much the same many places. Here in Moore County NC too... just concentrated in the south end for now.

Unfortunately, there are not many places left to avoid it in one form or another.
 
i hate damn tree huggers. you just try and tell them what they can or cant do and you will see what a one way street is.


"you and me, lets go kill a tree" :greenchainsaw:
 

Similar threads

L
W.S.J. Article: "Tree Abuse Regs"
Replies
2
Views
469
logbutcher
L

Latest posts

Back
Top