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 ...
In either case it sounds totally legitimate. I understand how groups like this Sonoma Land Trust work. Their whole focus is on buying land or acquiring easements through completely voluntary agreements, not any kind of "taking."
Were they getting a tax break from the easement?
And California was not yet a part of the United States.
ML/NJ
Abraham Lincoln worked as a boatman, store clerk, surveyor, militia soldier, and became a lawyer in Illinois.
He was elected to the Illinois Legislature in 1834, and was reelected in 1836, 1838, 1840, and 1844..."
He was elected president of the United States in 1860
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_and_career_of_Abraham_Lincoln
Twenty-five or thirty so years ago, an Arizona golf course developer moved a large tree across several states and successfully relocated one large tree, an Oak if memory serves me.
What sort of moron thinks you can relocate a 180 year old oak tree? That takes a special kind of stupid.
I don’t know the particulars but it sounds like this may not have been their try to move, even though it was on their property (some sort of natural easement or something).
A friend of mine in Mercer Island, WA wanted to cut down a bunch of trees on his property, but the city has laws against it without a permit. So he spiked the ones he wanted to cut down (killed them). When they died, he started to take a chainsaw to one and one of his neighbors came out and threatened to call the police. He explained the difference to her regarding cutting down a DEAD tree. :)
I have 25 acres of trees in KY. I can cut down anything I want. It’s my property.
Kinda like in the old days. :)
Then it died, along with others they moved.
Did they quit watering it when they got into a court battle?
They move huge trees in Florida all the time, but moving them requires them to go in more than a year or more in advance and prune the roots so that when moved, the tree will have lots of healthy new feeder roots to get started.
But Florida gets a lot of rain.
It used to screw my navigation up when I first came down here because I had always used notable trees as landmarks back home. I’d be looking for a certain live oak to know when to turn and it’d be gone with the area sodded up or a new species of tree would be there and I’d drive past wondering how the heck I could miss a 100 ft tree.
but that’s still no excuse for breaking a contract they signed to ease their taxes
Must be demorats: taxes for thee but not for me.
There was a stipulation in the deed. no sympathy here.
Conservation easements are voluntarily sold or donated by the property owner. Nothing illegal about it. Wetlands delineations are made by governments and could and maybe should be considered to be takings. Diametrically opposed encumbrances.
If you did not read the article, well you will fit right in, carry on!
You only think you own your private property. NO. The government lets you use it, but you get the bills for maintenance and above all the taxes.
Easy! Read the article.
“The tree, two others they removed and a dozen others along a previously undisturbed path they bulldozed died, along with surrounding vegetation.”
“If the tree was 185 years old, then it was planted in 1834.”
Likely if it was “planted” it was done by a squirrel.
Best guess an acorn just fell on the ground and got covered up....
Dumba$$e$
On most trees the Root Ball (System) is the same size as the Canopy (Branches and Leaves).
I can see if the property owners didn’t know the dipstick Tree Relocation Company should have and they never should have been moving that tree.
180 years of Gods work destroyed !!!
Vice President: Martin Van Buren (D-New York)
I think the Van Buren Boys might have something to say about this.
Should have consulted, er, paid off their “city planner.”
In 1963, I had an apprentice working for me at Ma Bell, who left to become an Arborist.
Since then he has become a leader in preserving and moving old and larger historic trees. His advice for moving a tree or not, is very well respected.
One of his great moves is The Annie Beck Tree in Ft. Lauderdale! http://www.medepalma.com/beck.htm
They’ve already killed two trees and other vegetation.
It was on an easement.
You know what, no, I’m not on the wrong forum but some things are just better left alone. they should have left it there instead of being greedy and trying to move something that old and well established.
FWIW, then you’d better go rag on a whole bunch of others in this thread about being on the wrong forum as well. the comments previous to yours explain the situation pretty well.
And besides, just because (you think) you can do something, doesn’t mean you should.
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.