Man Faces Fine For Pruning Tree (only in Massachusetts)

Yahoo News ^ | Feb 3,2007

[AmericanMade1776]

A Worcester property owner is facing a stiff fine after confusion over a city order to clean up a vacant lot brought about the sad end of a 200-year-old silver maple tree.

NewsCenter 5's Jim Boyd reported that an elegant shade tree once stood at the corner of Carver and Belmont streets in Worcester, at the edge of a vacant lot belonging to businessman Anthony Mallozzi.

In September 2005, Worcester officials denied Mallozzi's request to remove tree, insisting city workers would instead prune it. The city did no work on the tree. Last month, Mallozzi paid to have the tree pruned.

That tree was healthy, vigorous and did not need the level of pruning that Mr. Mallozzi undertook," Worcester City Manager Michael O'Brien said.

Mallozzi argued the tree was dying from termite infestation. He took pictures of rotted limbs, and he said the city's Department of Health and Human Services sent him a letter, which he interpreted to mean that he should trim the tree.

[AmericanMade1776]

But Worcester officials maintain the tree is public property and does not belong to Mallozzi. Mallozzi said based on the orders that he's gotten from the city, he's basically been put in a no-win situation.

"If you follow the order, you get in trouble. If you don't follow the order, you get in trouble," he said.

The city manager said orders from health officials were referring to high weeds on Mallozzi's lot, not the tree.

"We never direct private property owners to maintain or manage private property. That's our responsibility," O'Brien said.

Worcester officials posted notices on the tree and began an investigation. They said Mallozzi destroyed public property, and they slapped him with a hefty fine.

"(The fine for this tree) is $6,800 to replace the tree," Mallozzi said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/wcvb/20070203/lo_wcvb/10915824

[AmericanMade1776]

The Maple Tree in Question

[BenLurkin]

"...at the edge of a vacant lot belonging to businessman Anthony Mallozzi"

It's his tree!

He can cut it down if he wants to, right?

[Drango]

"We never direct private property owners to maintain or manage private property. That's our responsibility," O'Brien said.

What????

[isthisnickcool]

The solution is to run enough people for city council so you can take it over and change the law. Fire the city manager while you are at it. This solution works 100% of the time.

[Dallas59]

Not in Massachusetts...

[AmericanMade1776]

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/videofiles/10915909/playlist.asx?qs=t;speed=high;adtarget=inline;clienttrack=clienttrack

Video of Malozzi and Maple Tree

[tsmith130]

I was JUST getting ready to post that exact same thing. WTH does that mean?

[GoldenPup]

Only in Taxachusetts. Not surprising. Look at their two "Gong Show contestant" US Senators.

[AmericanMade1776]

I am surprised there is no tax on cutting a tree on your own property in Massachusetts!!! shhhhhhh Bet Teddy Kennedy hasn't thought of that tax code yet.

[AmericanMade1776]

For video of News story of tree being cut go to this Url
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/10915824/detail.html?rss=bos&psp=news

[MindBender26]

The tree was not "pruned." It was killed.

Under the law, the State often has control of land within a certain distance from a public thoroughfare. For example, for safety reasons, no one wants a large tree planted or a brick wall built within six inches of the curb of 55 mph road.

[Moonman62]

That's not pruning.

[leda]

"And it says that, 'I am responsible that I should not allow or maintain any growth of shrubs, bushes or trees to extend onto or over any portion of the public way, including sidewalks,'" he said.

But Worcester officials maintain the tree is public property and does not belong to Mallozzi.

"We never direct private property owners to maintain or manage private property. That's our responsibility," O'Brien said.

talk about no win situations!

let's see...

the tree is on your property, so you have to trim it back
from public sidewalks. the city tells you to do just that.

wait, now they say it's public property.

in the same breath they say they do not direct private
property owners to maintain their own property because
that's their job.

yeesh! i'm confuzeled!

patton...sounds like poor bedo... :(

[AmericanMade1776]

Moonman62 wrote: That's not pruning.

No that is EXTREME PRUNING

[Moonman62]

It may not be his tree, but he may have the responsibility of maintaining it. The tree looks very close to the road. It may be on public property or an easement. Where I live the city has given the liability and maintenance of the sidewalks to the property owners. I hate that law.

[GoldenPup]

You've got that right!!

[Cicero]

Different kinds of trees require different kinds of pruning. If you cut back a maple like that, you will kill it.

This was obviously intentional. And for no obvious reason, other than spite. He deserves the fine.

[Tactical]

"We never direct private property owners to maintain or manage private property. That's our responsibility," O'Brien said.

So much for the definition of the words "PRIVATE Property".

[BenLurkin]

If the tree branches blocked a stop sign or its roots were pulling up a sidewalk then it was an encroachment onto public property.

The city certainly could request he do something about that.

BUT if his remedy is to remove his tree then that should be his right to take the tree out altogether. If the city wants shade then it need to plant its own tree.