Call to regulation pros/cons...

Chaplain242

Well-Known Member
There is way too much tree work happening. Trees are over pruned, over fertilized and over removed. Less folks with bigger machines than they can find work for would be a good thing
Yes here there are some areas nearby that require a permit for removal of trees (the assessment by the municipality usually costs too), and as the tree population diminishes is likely a policy that will become more common
 

kludge

New Member
as the tree population diminishes is likely a policy that will become more common
I am sorry for perhaps asking a question that is common knowledge, but what is the basis for your statement that the tree population is deminishing or will deminish?
 

Chaplain242

Well-Known Member
I am sorry for perhaps asking a question that is common knowledge, but what is the basis for your statement that the tree population is deminishing or will deminish?
This is specific to my city - in the inner city to be more specific. Overdevelopment has seen tree populations plummet in some areas. In one municipality the city compares satellite photos from the year before and if trees have been removed the homeowner gets cited with a tree planting order and/or a fine.
 
Last edited:

Birdyman88

Well-Known Member
said it was OK for me to remove trees on city property. The trees are nearly touching the power lines on one side of the street.
My power company here will take care of anything in the easement. Service lines are 3 ft radius from line; Single phase and secondary are 10 ft horizontal clearance infinitely upward; 3 phase is 15 ft horizontal clearance infinitely upward. If your utility has similar policy, I'm surprised he didn't mention that. Even if the trunks weren't in the zone, they would at least get the limbs out of the line.
 

dmonn

Active Member
This is wrong on so many levels. If that is totally accurate, that guy needs to loose his job, because he is not doing it, and putting people at unnecessary risk. I've seen enough dead ash just falling apart. He seriously said the city was not planning to remove the dead trees? Where they just going to let them fall onto people and property as they decay?

Yes, the city was going to just let the trees fall. It's a dead-end street with just two homeowners (I'm one) living at the end of it. From the City's perspective, the risk is low. Not much traffic or pedestrian use. From my perspective and my neighbor's perspective the risk was more significant. I agree. I think the guy should have lost his job for that. From my perspective, there was no question that I have the education (private lessons) and experience (1,000 removals?) to do the simple removals required. The City Arborist never asked about my qualifications.
 

Brocky

Well-Known Member
Make a complaint that you can document when you made it. The city probably has a time frame they have to answer and correct the problem. If they do nothing and one of the trees causes damage after that time frame, you would have grounds for a lawsuit. Mentioning, or asking about this when making the complaint might speed things up.

The right of way on your property doesn’t belong to the local government, it’s the property owner’s, they only have the right, and responsibility to use it and keep it safe.
 

dmonn

Active Member
Regarding the trees along the power lines, the power company only removed the branches that would have interfered with the lines if the branches fell--not if the entire tree fell. That's a policy that makes no sense to me when the entire tree is dead. I guess they figure the HO is liable for trees where the trunk is on private property. They don't want to be too proactive and remove the entire dead tree from private property--just the limbs that hang over the power lines. Dumb. Probably due to some past lawsuit. Not a fan of lawyers.
 

dmonn

Active Member
Make a complaint that you can document when you made it. The city probably has a time frame they have to answer and correct the problem. If they do nothing and one of the trees causes damage after that time frame, you would have grounds for a lawsuit. Mentioning, or asking about this when making the complaint might speed things up.

The right of way on your property doesn’t belong to the local government, it’s the property owner’s, they only have the right, and responsibility to use it and keep it safe.
Hmmm. Interesting. I always thought that the ROW meant the city owned the property. I'll have to look into this.

The trees are now down (without incident--pretty simple removals), so it's a done deal. Good to discuss here since I'm sure it's not a unique situation.
 

Birdyman88

Well-Known Member
the power company only removed the branches that would have interfered with the lines if the branches fell--not if the entire tree fell.
I see your point and have had a customer bring that up before. But, if you view it from the standpoint that the utility owns the easement, then the clearance policy is actually fairly consistent with most state tree ownership laws - simply, each entity is responsible for what lies within their boundary. If we disregard this and extend responsibility for tree outside the easement, then it opens a huge can of worms with regard to clearance cost and to utility trespassing on private property. If the tree dies and falls into the easement, it is my understanding that the utility accepts the burden of clearing at no cost to owner. I may be wrong on that latter part, but that's the way it works around here.
 

Chaplain242

Well-Known Member
Here local govt gets touchy about Treeworks if the tree is theirs. Although I have seen paper history of one client whereby the city tried to pass off the responsibility to the HO because of the expense.

After being hit with a work order (after the problem trees had grown large - when HO wanted them addressed whilst they were much smaller) the HO kept the correspondence and the city had to take responsibility.
 

liv_rong

Member
The city I work for requires any contractor working within city limits to have a contractor license and adequate insurance. We do not require anything specific for tree companies, just $2,000,000 in general liability. The license is $50.
 

dmonn

Active Member
I looked into what Brocky said about ownership of a street right of way. For a public entity (City, County, State, or Feds) to have a Right of Way for a road, street, highway, etc., the property ownership can vary by state. In some states the public entity actually owns the right of way, and in some states the entity only owns an easement to use the property for public passage. Within those states that own the property, they don't always own it. It "Depends" (on legalese I don't really understand).

I always thought that "Right of Way" on a plat map that showed the roads meant that the property was owned by the public entity. Not always true. Thanks, Brocky.
 

owScott

Well-Known Member
regulations / licensure is not going to stop the thugs. thugs can get licenses, and your mentioned intimidation factor would only deter reporting them against their license.

personally, I don't see any reasonable homeowner risking life or limb to save a few bucks on a tree service, and I don't see any reasonable homeowner hiring a tree service that doesn't provide proof of insurance and / or licensure.
Yep - I said it, it's always the homeowners' fault.
Really, see it every day. Does EVERY customer you get ask for proof of insurance or license? Homeowners definitely hire unlicensed, uninsured, unqualified hack tree services all the time to save a few bucks.
 

owScott

Well-Known Member
The city I work for requires any contractor working within city limits to have a contractor license and adequate insurance. We do not require anything specific for tree companies, just $2,000,000 in general liability. The license is $50.
The problem is they require require require but don't enforce anything at least around here.
 

owScott

Well-Known Member
Regarding the trees along the power lines, the power company only removed the branches that would have interfered with the lines if the branches fell--not if the entire tree fell. That's a policy that makes no sense to me when the entire tree is dead. I guess they figure the HO is liable for trees where the trunk is on private property. They don't want to be too proactive and remove the entire dead tree from private property--just the limbs that hang over the power lines. Dumb. Probably due to some past lawsuit. Not a fan of lawyers.
I think if the power companies removed every tree with the potential to hit the lines they would be out of business. I think its cheaper to clean up than be proactive. I don't necessarily agree but that I think is their positon
 

moss

Well-Known Member
There is way too much tree work happening. Trees are over pruned, over fertilized and over removed. Less folks with bigger machines than they can find work for would be a good thing
I often urge potential customers to get multiple quotes, I give them the names of tree services to call. Or I might recommend a tree service to do something I don't do like insecticide applications. I get interesting feedback from the customers, some of the tree services I've recommended come in and try to sell everything they can beyond what the customer was initially looking for, cabling, takedowns, etc. etc. They're on autopilot, they get removed from my "call for a quote" list.
-AJ
 
Top