Knuckleheads with more money...

[Tom Dunlap]

...than decency sometimes feel that they can do what they want with impunity.

A friend of mine in MN sent me this link. I know that area because I did some lot clearings around Anderson Lake. This guy went onto park property and cut down 12-14" diameter trees! Twice! I'll bet in the end he pays less than a thousand dollar fine.

Stuart Fox is the parks manager for the city. He is the one who is responsible for turning me away from logs and lumber forestry and getting me into landscaping. When I was at the U of MN he came to class looking for people to work on the landscape crew of a construction company. It was a good part time and summer job. I can say that if it weren't for Stu I wouldn't be doing what I do now. That was a key move for me.

Google's spy satellite came through for me. I entered his address and went to sat view. Even if you don't know the area the sat pic is pretty clear. People like this get my blood boiling.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1405/5503620.html

Google's spy satellite came through for me. The picture is clear enough to see that there is a large woods behind the guys house.

I'd like to see the guy in an orange jumpsuit working in the Eden Prairie parks system, at minimum wage, to pay his fine. Swamping toilets or draggin buckthorn.

 

[Treespotter]

What's the hassle taking those trees down and getting a fine. If you have the money, why not raise the level of the lake... than the lake wil start at your porch /forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

 

[RGus]

I came across a similar situation at work this last week. There was this guy, we'll call him Joe, who decided he wanted to move out of the Twin Cities to a lake home in the country. Joe bought a house with an existing house, and wonderfully large white oak and red cedar. The problem was that those trees were blocking his view of the lake. Joe decided to remove many of these trees, which the majority of them were located on a very steep slope leading down to the lake. Joe didnt see if there were any regulations on cutting trees that close to the lake, and on that steep of a slope. Now the county is making him plant 20 2" diameter trees on the slope and in his backyard, to replace the trees lost.

I also found out this week Joe had built a deck on the back of his house. But he decided not to get a building permit for the deck. Since the deck is located so many feet from the lake he also needed a varience from the county allowing him to put in the deck, but Joe decided not to get one of those either. Now the county is most likely going to make him remove his brand new deck.

Some people are completly ignorant.

 

[Tom Dunlap]

In a couple of emails with Stu Fox, the parks manager for Eden Prairie he wrote:


The value that I gave the trees is based on the replacement value of the trees and not the high end plant appraisal value that some consultants would place on the trees. I have been involved in 5 tree cutting cases as an expert witness (for insurance companies and attorneys) and the pre-trial settlements and jury awards have always been close to the replacement costs to plant a similar number of diameter inches to mitigate the loss. These "park areas" while the trees have $ value don't stand up well in court cases when a defense attorney starts to argue the high tree value verses the land value. That is why we took a more conservative approach in setting the value. The one thing that will be a plus regardless of the outcome is that people will take notice when I talk to them about trespass and destruction of vegetation on public property.
***

The unfortunate thing is that time and size are the two factors that money can't buy. Two hours of cutting can undo decades of growth and beauty and no amount of money can buy that back.
FYI - Attorneys love to argue the "intention" clause. I have seen this several times used for and against trespass tree cutting issues. It goes like this:

Defense Attorney Q: So your intentions were to improve your property by removing the trees by removing the poorly formed and undesirable trees from the unused portion of your neighbor's property?
Defendant A: Yes, I thought that it would improve both our properties by cutting them down. After all they were only "weed" trees.
Prosecution Attorney Q: If your intentions were to improve things why did you think it was OK to remove trees on property that you don't own?
Defendant A: It was my intention to improve our properties since he (she or they) hasn't been maintaining the trees and it was making my property look bad.

I know both of these sound corny but I have heard testimony similar to this.

Bottom line-Trespass and tree removal are against the law no matter what your intentions were.
If you don't have written permission don't cut and then expect your neighbor to be understanding!

 

[Pondracer]

Those arguments are common, the plaintiff needs a better attorney. Unfortunately the amount of money involved in the majority of tree cutting cases (<$100k)do not really attract quality representation.

Our neighbor and the attorneys for his insurance company tried these arguments - and failed. Do not be discouraged from pursuing the FULL amount available to you under the law.

 

[Peter]

A UK developer was fined nearly £100,000 for felling one tree during a road building project several years ago. The tree was planted by the Queen to commemorate something about 40 years earlier.
This kind of fine is very unusual though, and most ordinary people think they'll get away with violating tree preservation orders, or arent even aware of the existence of such orders. The most common reaction is, "they're my trees and I can do what i like with them, cant I?"
A more average kind of fine is between £500 and £2000 depending on the exact circumstances, and it is usual to fine both the homeowner and the contractor in a domestic situation.
Any kind of fine imposed can never and will never rectify the damage done by people with no respect for trees.

 

[Lifesabeach]

This part,


Ding still does not have a perfect view of the lake, according to neighbor Michael Perpich, who said it looked as if Ding had only cut up to Ding's side of the fence.

"I was really kind of surprised that someone raised as big of a fuss," Perpich said. "I walked in the back yard, and I still can't see the lake from their back yard. You can't see a thing."

/forum/images/graemlins/9lame.gif


Quoted from a "neighbor" boggles the mind!

 

[KCGuy]

Tom, (etal),
We struggle with the same thing... rural juries think trees are worth less than do urban. Interesting point though, if you want to remove a tree on Mo. Dept. of Transportation
property, it costs you $100.00 per inch DBH! (For signage, for example). We've had lawyers use that as the "base line", and it seems to fly.
If the state agency has established the minimum value of the state trees, how can you argue mine are worth less?

 

[Chucky]

My thought is that city officials, rather than penalizing this bloviator with a fine (nominal to him) equivalent to the replacement value of the trees, that they require him instead to purchase a gigantic mirror to place at the boundary of his property facing his supersized McMansion. Not an ordinary mirror. But one of those funhouse "fat" mirrors, so when McFatcat lounges on his deck with a martini with a fat cigar gazing afar, he takes in not a panoramic view of a lake, but instead an ugly, distorted, bloated reflection of himself, a parody of how blind, heedless ignorance, arrogance, and greediness slowly and methodically makes precious habitable space on this Earth becomes vanishingly smaller.

No, this isn't "Remedy." /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[hl_tree]

I would like to say 2 things here.

1) I just loved the whole "molestation of vegetation" bit.

2) A number of years ago, when the Rockefellers were in full swing, they bought property down county with a great view of the river. In order to keep the view of the river, they cut down a whole bunch of trees that weren't going to be any good for the view, and hauled in a lot of LARGE trees which would allow them to keep their view of the river all nicey nice. Now in addition to that, they didn't want to ever be able to see any houses across the river, so they also bought that land, and maintained trees on that side. So that's kind of like the polar opposite, people spending $$$ to get the view, but keep things the way they should be... nice and green with trees.

 

[Pete_in_Tassie]

I like your thinking there Chucky!