D
Deleted member 8987
Guest
Guest
Offline
Been dealing with local council for several weeks on some oddball development issues.
One councilman has been helpful to the point of showing up here last Saturday to discuss some of the issues.
This morning he put out a blurb on a FB page my wife is a member of.
Apparently they are concerned about loss of canopy (strict rules on homeowners removing trees) when the problem is developers who are allowed to clean off acres of all trees.
NOW the discussion is to make all trees community assets or property. You no longer own your trees.
Excerpt:
....position is that your trees do not belong to you, the property owner, but are owned by the community in common, with the ultimate control over which trees must be kept and which may be removed being made by the city council through regulations administered by city staff including certified arborists. Those individuals would, on behalf of the community, decide on the disposition of your trees based on the number, size, species, location, grouping, and health of the trees, as defined in complex rules that go on for over 10,000 words. You would be able to ask the city for permission to remove trees on your property, but the city would be the decider. Except for damaged trees that are an immediate safety hazard, if you remove any tree without advance permission from its true owner -- the city -- you would be subject to fines of thousands of dollars for each tree removed. The city could also require that if you remove certain trees that you must plant many other trees in their place, or require that you pay the cost of planting those replacement trees somewhere else.
Makes me very happy I have reached and now exceeded the scriptural requirements of three score and ten.
(for those complainers, no political parties mentioned, no firearms mentioned, no innuendo, and other than my 3 score and 10 comment, NO comment. But I am convinced there will be complainers)
One councilman has been helpful to the point of showing up here last Saturday to discuss some of the issues.
This morning he put out a blurb on a FB page my wife is a member of.
Apparently they are concerned about loss of canopy (strict rules on homeowners removing trees) when the problem is developers who are allowed to clean off acres of all trees.
NOW the discussion is to make all trees community assets or property. You no longer own your trees.
Excerpt:
....position is that your trees do not belong to you, the property owner, but are owned by the community in common, with the ultimate control over which trees must be kept and which may be removed being made by the city council through regulations administered by city staff including certified arborists. Those individuals would, on behalf of the community, decide on the disposition of your trees based on the number, size, species, location, grouping, and health of the trees, as defined in complex rules that go on for over 10,000 words. You would be able to ask the city for permission to remove trees on your property, but the city would be the decider. Except for damaged trees that are an immediate safety hazard, if you remove any tree without advance permission from its true owner -- the city -- you would be subject to fines of thousands of dollars for each tree removed. The city could also require that if you remove certain trees that you must plant many other trees in their place, or require that you pay the cost of planting those replacement trees somewhere else.
Makes me very happy I have reached and now exceeded the scriptural requirements of three score and ten.
(for those complainers, no political parties mentioned, no firearms mentioned, no innuendo, and other than my 3 score and 10 comment, NO comment. But I am convinced there will be complainers)