Skip to comments.
Man Faces Fine For Pruning Tree (only in Massachusetts)
Yahoo News ^
| Feb 3,2007
Posted on 02/04/2007 6:54:18 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
TOPICS: Miscellaneous; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-85 next last
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
To: AmericanMade1776
The Maple Tree in Question
To: AmericanMade1776
"...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?
3
posted on
02/04/2007 6:56:57 AM PST
by
BenLurkin
To: AmericanMade1776
"We never direct private property owners to maintain or manage private property. That's our responsibility," O'Brien said. What????
4
posted on
02/04/2007 6:58:08 AM PST
by
Drango
(A liberal's compassion is limited only by the size of someone else's wallet.)
To: AmericanMade1776
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.
5
posted on
02/04/2007 6:58:34 AM PST
by
isthisnickcool
(The only reason you are still conscious is because I don't want to carry you- J. Bauer)
To: BenLurkin
6
posted on
02/04/2007 6:58:43 AM PST
by
Dallas59
(HAPPY NEW YEAR 2007!)
To: AmericanMade1776
To: Drango
I was JUST getting ready to post that exact same thing. WTH does that mean?
8
posted on
02/04/2007 6:59:14 AM PST
by
tsmith130
To: AmericanMade1776
Only in Taxachusetts. Not surprising. Look at their two "Gong Show contestant" US Senators.
9
posted on
02/04/2007 6:59:26 AM PST
by
GoldenPup
To: GoldenPup
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.
To: AmericanMade1776
To: BenLurkin
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.
12
posted on
02/04/2007 7:03:26 AM PST
by
MindBender26
(Having my own CAR-15 in Vietnam meant never having to say I was sorry......)
To: AmericanMade1776
13
posted on
02/04/2007 7:03:48 AM PST
by
Moonman62
(The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
To: AmericanMade1776; patton
"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... :(
14
posted on
02/04/2007 7:05:06 AM PST
by
leda
(The quiet girl on the stairs.)
To: Moonman62
Moonman62 wrote: That's not pruning.
No that is EXTREME PRUNING
To: BenLurkin
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.
16
posted on
02/04/2007 7:07:03 AM PST
by
Moonman62
(The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
To: AmericanMade1776
To: AmericanMade1776
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.
18
posted on
02/04/2007 7:10:04 AM PST
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: AmericanMade1776
"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".
19
posted on
02/04/2007 7:10:46 AM PST
by
Tactical
To: MindBender26; Moonman62
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.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-85 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson