Posted on 05/09/2019 3:19:38 AM PDT by ETL
A judge ordered a Northern California couple this week to pay nearly $600,000 for uprooting an almost 200-year-old oak tree from their property that was protected under a conservation easement.
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.
The tree, two others they removed and a dozen others along a previously undisturbed path they bulldozed died, along with surrounding vegetation.
The Sonoma County Superior Judge sided with the Sonoma Land Trust, saying the Thompsons knowingly violated the conservation deal and said they demonstrated “arrogance” and “disregard” over the terms of the easement.
The fine of $586,000 will go toward environmental restoration on the property.
The couple, who decided to sell their estate for $8.45 million after the ruling, are seeking a new trial, reasoning their attorney could not properly represent them for personal reasons.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Charlie Trie? :)
What sort of moron thinks you can relocate a 180 year old oak tree? That takes a special kind of stupid.
I am not nearly familiar enough with the details to make an informed decision, but man that’s a beautiful tree. They moved it, they didn’t cut it down. But I guess in California there’s no such thing as private property any more.
It takes hubris to think that... but it was a purely tree.
California literally cannot get out of its own shit but the elites will protect their environment.
Was this Rome before the fall?
Bullflop. It’s a tree. It resides on my property. I will cut it, burn it, turn it into pulp, turn it into boards and build a house with it.
The only thing to know here is it’s California.
I think they are going to kill that tree.
They aren’t going to be able to get enough of its roots to maintain that much foliage.
They should have left it. They didn’t plant it, it came with the property, and they should have left it.
They were either conned into moving that tree were thinking that it could be done, or they’re just plain stoopid. That tree was too beautiful mess with and I could care less about trees in general, but that one being that it was as old as it is need a little bit of respect.
Its a tree!! More will grow.
And even if it was, there was clearly some kind of restriction or encumbrance on the property that limited their freedom to do whatever they wanted with it.
Micromanaging grass. Impressive.
That is right. They bought the property knowing of the conservation easement, then violated it.
If there is an easement on your “property” like it or not you must abide by it. The only prayer these people might have would be if the easement was not there when they bought the property and added after the fact. If it was there when they bought the property, they knew about it and bought the property with the full knowledge of it then they are screwed.
Tie a $600,000 Ribbon ‘round the Old Oak Tree
Just shows you how arrogant all that money makes people act. $600K is probably chump change to them.
Shame about the trees though - they were worth more than a pile of rich California liberals.
City officials of a Texas town that told citizens they could save a 250 yr oak by moving it.
Tree is dead and they made a small Park for the tree trunk, complete with a Hysterical Marker in front of it.
If the tree was 185 years old, then it was planted in 1834.
Federal Government in 1834
President: Andrew Jackson (D-Tennessee)
Vice President: Martin Van Buren (D-New York)
Chief Justice: John Marshall (Virginia)
Speaker of the House of Representatives: Andrew Stevenson (D-Virginia) (until June 2), John Bell (Whig-Tennessee) (starting June 2)
Congress: 23rd
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1834_in_the_United_States
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.