[rlmorel]

You folks need to read the article.

Unless I am misreading it (and I live in Massachusetts, so I have heard a little more about it) the tree was NOT on the person's property, it was at the EDGE of his propery but not on it. It was on CITY land.

What he did was wrong. He deserved to be fined. If it was on his property, fine. He can do what he wishes. But is was not, and that changes everything. It is being portrayed as the government telling the guy what he can do with property he owns, and it is nothing like that.

[Moonman62]

In many localities trees enjoy more legal protections than children. I've gone through several hurricanes now and at least 80% of the damage to houses and cars was caused by fallen trees. Insurance rates have skyrocketed, and I have not heard the first word from a politician or an insurance company about easing the laws protecting trees. A permit is required to cut one down, and it must be replaced with at least three new trees, or with six trees if using palms, which ironically are hurricane resistant.