....And I bet they didn't even use it for firewood Couple must pay nearly $600G for removing oak tree from their property, judge rules
But if the government wanted to remove it to widen a road or make a parking space, that would be just fine.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The balls of need that constantly need juggling.
What the article doesn’t address is the nature of the conservation easement on the property. It is possible that the landowner benefited from some kind of payment or tax reduction for keeping the land in a certain condition. The easement also could have been put in place prior to purchase with the intent of preserving the land in a certain state. This is not a fine paid to a government entity, it is between two private parties. The land owner and the Sonoma Land Trust. This is no different than someone buying land without the mineral rights and then extracting oil or gold or coal that someone else rightfully owns.. you bet the owner of those mineral rights would sue.. Some info on the land trust.. Care For The Land – Conservation Easements | Sonoma Land Trust And another one in the area. Conservation Easements - Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District The media is sensationalizing this and not telling the whole story. It is a lot different than government entities passing zoning laws not allowing landowners to cut their own trees on residential lots and fining them for doing so..
Peter and Toni Thompson removed the 180-year-old heritage oak tree to move it to another home they built adjacent to the property. More than 3,000 cubic yards of dirt was also removed in the process. 3000 cu yards of dirt. Now that's a rootball
Exactly I got paid for a gas pipeline Right of Way, I still own the property, but what I can use it for is limited. I can grow "cover" crops, but cannot replant trees there. Likely that they, or a previous owner basically sold the rights to the trees and vegetation on the conservation easement. Wonder if they got an annual payment to "not improve" the property? Not to worry, they sold the place for $8.45 Million, they won't be filing bankruptcy over the fine.
media hype and sensationalism...unbelievable! It was nice that they spent the money to save the tree and not just cut it down.
It still died it said in the article I read. And I agree, they violated an easement that probably collected $$ from.
These were extremely wealthy pople not content with one mansio, so they build another a spend big bucks to move a beautful tree to a "perfect spot" at the new place. Mostly to serve as a conversation piece when they have extravagent parties. . I suspect they just thought the rules didnt apply to them. The judge set the fine based on their wealth, and wanted to make sure it stung.
I'm not sure what's more baffling. The 600k fine or the fact they attempted to move and replant a 200+ year old oak.
Years ago I lived in California where there where these types of oaks all over the neighborhood. Some of them I were guess were as old as the country and it was illegal to cut them down. They were absolutely HUGE. Some trunks were probably 7,8, or nine feet in diameter and the lowest branches 3 or 4 feet thick 30 feet above ground. A few houses had these branches hanging over the tops of their roofs. My wife and I would take walks around the block and wonder which storm would come next and break that branch off and destroy the house. Not a question of if but when. But you couldn’t cut them. And the problem was even if you could the problem was HOW? You would have to tie each section up so secure it could not fall down onto the house crushing it when it was cut. We couldn’t figure out why the house was even built there in the first place and then why someone would buy it. Probably a well insured rental.
