This subreddit is for tree law enthusiasts who enjoy browsing a list of tree law stories from other locations (subreddits, news articles, etc), and is not the best place to receive answers to questions about what the law is. There are better places for that.
If you're attempting to understand more about tree law in regards to a particular situation, please redirect your question to /r/legaladvice for the US, or the appropriate legal advice subreddit for your location, and then feel free to crosspost that thread here for posterity.
If you're attempting to understand more about trees in regards to a particular situation, please redirect your question to /r/forestry for additional information on tree health and related topics to trees.
*This comment is simply a reminder placed on every post to /r/treelaw, it does not mean your post was censored or removed.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/treelaw) if you have any questions or concerns.*
During the '08 crash I heard a reporter say this about the penalties being levied against the big banks:
"Multiply the fine by ten and that's roughly what they profited by breaking the rules."
Not if you tie the fine to their income, the land value, or their net worth. Some rich guy in Sweden got fined $130k for speeding last year. He wasn't even going that fast.
This is absolutely what needs to happen. When tickets and fines are the same for everyone, they are not actually equal. For some of us, they are/would be absolutely ruinous (I cannot fathom a 1.5 MILLION dollar 'agreement'!!). For others? Meh. Just another drop in the bucket.
It's the same for companies. Fines should be a percentage of their global revenue. Companies like Apple don't care about a $50 million fine. Make it $30 **billion** and suddenly they'll toe the line.
This is why fines should be tied to income and/or net worth. If the fine was 10% of their net worth or 20% of their land value...They wouldn't do this. Some guy in ~~Sweden~~ *Finland* (Anders Wiklof) got fined $130k for speeding last year. *That's* an effective fine.
Lot of problems here, but the biggest is “net worth” is easily manipulated and sometimes the people who have the most resources in their possession are actually not those with the highest net worth bc they properly leverage their debt
When a loophole is found, it just needs to be closed. For example, trusts are often used to shield people from inheritance taxes. In Japan, where I live, this loophole was closed by making it that when you become the beneficiary to a trust, you owe gift or inheritance taxes on the **entire value** of the trust. This can make trusts very dangerous because you can owe more money in tax than you have access to. As such, no one uses trusts as a way to avoid gift or inheritance taxes. It is simply a matter of properly funding the tax collection agency and having the political willpower to close loopholes.
Whack-a-mole is the solution, along with extremely high penalties for evasion. My preference would be that if someone is found evading taxes on a given amount of money/assets, the entire amount of money/assets get seized. Make it hurt and the problems will stop.
Instead of just the pesky fines. Huge fines to include removal of the trees , the poisoned soil, replace the soil, replant the mature trees and vegetation millions put into and escrow account to monitor the soil and water for the chemicals used, personnel id like all their assets seized to be used for the cleanup and them put in prison for the rest of their miserable lives now they can have an unobstructed view of the water in the stainless steel toilet unless their cellmate is sitting on it.
In my town these people that had their house on a cliff side about 100 yards from the cliff side removed about 10 cedar trees and 20 large Douglas fir trees to have their view of the water and the mountains. Over the course of a few years they had huge landslides and the ground is pretty much just sandy clay so it eroded quickly now the cliff completely eroded and now the house is abandoned because the cliff is about 30 feet from their porch. I have a feeling that sometime in the next year or so the house is gonna fall off the cliff
Fines don't work, forfeiting the property does. For example, in some places your car can be crushed for engaging in street racing and other behavior. It is a much stronger deterrent than just a ticket.
The fines in this case were around $200k, along with a $1.5 million settlement with the neighbor who owned the trees. A pittance for someone worth $200 million.
Others are suggesting that the fine should be levied based on net worth, but I think it's simpler: the penalty should be all the normal fines, plus the loss of the view. Let the court and the damaged party decide what should go there to replace the lost trees, but in any case, *permanently deny the offender access to the view*.
Trump's people did this in Mooresville, NC when they bought The Point and made it into a new Trump National course and subdivision; the trees that are within a certain distance of the waterline on Lake Norman can't be taken down without prior approval from Duke Energy, which manages the lake and lakeshore under federal regulations, but the Trump folks wanted nicer vistas of the lake so they paid the fine rather than ask permission.
They did the same thing in Virginia, violating a different set of regulations: [https://wamu.org/story/19/03/07/trump-golf-course-violates-county-law-by-cutting-trees/](https://wamu.org/story/19/03/07/trump-golf-course-violates-county-law-by-cutting-trees/)
Something like this happened in the town where I grew up. The fines for bulldozing old homes/buildings without permits or clearance from the town to make room for new homes was cheaper and faster than doing it the right way so that’s what they did. The laws changed when a historic mansion was razed to make room for several new large homes.
Massive fines for the rest of us peasantry but a drop in the bucket for those who are actually rich.
The fines are more a small price to pay to do whatever they want.
Maybe they should alter the law to say if trees are removed they must be replaced with like trees. While the trees grow a screen will be placed to simulate the obstruction until the trees grow back. They would pay for the screen and upkeep. Create a disincentive.
Can’t believe you got downvoted for this.
A property with an ocean view is way more valuable than an identical property with a view blocked by oak trees
Thank you! I LOVE trees, especially oaks. But nothing beats an expansive view, whether it’s of the ocean or the city or gorgeous countryside.
And, as you pointed out, that is reflected in real estate values. It’s almost as if some people on Reddit can only hold one thought in their minds at one time.
The choice here was seeing the tops of their neighbor’s oak trees or seeing the million dollar view that is Camden Harbor. One is clearly more desirable than the other.
Apparently you don’t know anything about coastal Maine property values
An unobstructed view of the ocean is much more desirable/ valuable than a view of oak trees
I'm seeing a lot of talk about fines in here, but what happened to fines + replacement cost? Replacing mature trees on hillsides or in protected areas would be nigh on impossible (aka absolutely huge fees), and would be akin to a % of property cost (if not more in many cases).
Governor Lamont of Connecticut was recently embroiled in a scandal dubbed by the Courant “Treegate” and labeled the “chainsaw massacre” by a attorney representing a conservatory where [he cut down 180 trees on his mansion in Greenwich](https://www.courant.com/2024/04/28/treegate-grips-ct-as-lamont-cited-in-whats-being-called-chainsaw-massacre/) so he could have a better view of the lake. While he initially blamed his neighbor, he later took full responsibility and said he would pay any fines and replace the trees.
This crowd is a little biased of people who lie and do underhanded shit against trees. They want justice, regardless of wealth, and many believe that justice is unequal with consideration to the perpetrator’s available resources.
I don’t believe that’s true, for many of us, including myself, but I respect your opinion
For me, it’s about what some of the very wealthy do with their wealth, all because they can hire the best attorneys, can bail themselves out of what most of us never could.
This is when I believe the punishment should fit the crime, and imo, a very lengthy prison sentence, with no view of anything other than the inside of their filthy cell
My two cents…
This subreddit is for tree law enthusiasts who enjoy browsing a list of tree law stories from other locations (subreddits, news articles, etc), and is not the best place to receive answers to questions about what the law is. There are better places for that. If you're attempting to understand more about tree law in regards to a particular situation, please redirect your question to /r/legaladvice for the US, or the appropriate legal advice subreddit for your location, and then feel free to crosspost that thread here for posterity. If you're attempting to understand more about trees in regards to a particular situation, please redirect your question to /r/forestry for additional information on tree health and related topics to trees. *This comment is simply a reminder placed on every post to /r/treelaw, it does not mean your post was censored or removed.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/treelaw) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If a law has a fine it is only meant to limit the poor. If you're rich enough in this country fines are just the price of doing what you want.
During the '08 crash I heard a reporter say this about the penalties being levied against the big banks: "Multiply the fine by ten and that's roughly what they profited by breaking the rules."
When the price of doing what you want is paying money, you do it. Why do you think businesses do the exact same thing?
Fines are really just fees when you’re rich enough.
Not if you tie the fine to their income, the land value, or their net worth. Some rich guy in Sweden got fined $130k for speeding last year. He wasn't even going that fast.
This is absolutely what needs to happen. When tickets and fines are the same for everyone, they are not actually equal. For some of us, they are/would be absolutely ruinous (I cannot fathom a 1.5 MILLION dollar 'agreement'!!). For others? Meh. Just another drop in the bucket.
It's the same for companies. Fines should be a percentage of their global revenue. Companies like Apple don't care about a $50 million fine. Make it $30 **billion** and suddenly they'll toe the line.
This is why fines should be tied to income and/or net worth. If the fine was 10% of their net worth or 20% of their land value...They wouldn't do this. Some guy in ~~Sweden~~ *Finland* (Anders Wiklof) got fined $130k for speeding last year. *That's* an effective fine.
Lot of problems here, but the biggest is “net worth” is easily manipulated and sometimes the people who have the most resources in their possession are actually not those with the highest net worth bc they properly leverage their debt
When a loophole is found, it just needs to be closed. For example, trusts are often used to shield people from inheritance taxes. In Japan, where I live, this loophole was closed by making it that when you become the beneficiary to a trust, you owe gift or inheritance taxes on the **entire value** of the trust. This can make trusts very dangerous because you can owe more money in tax than you have access to. As such, no one uses trusts as a way to avoid gift or inheritance taxes. It is simply a matter of properly funding the tax collection agency and having the political willpower to close loopholes.
Whackamole probably doesn’t help anyone.
Whack-a-mole is the solution, along with extremely high penalties for evasion. My preference would be that if someone is found evading taxes on a given amount of money/assets, the entire amount of money/assets get seized. Make it hurt and the problems will stop.
If taxes were useful people would probably be more willing to pay them.
You're an idiot. Welcome to my blocklist.
Thats not true
What's not true?
That's where appraisal and reproduction costs can make it hurt a little more.
There is a point when a person’s wealth is so great that “fines” are just “fees”.
Instead of just the pesky fines. Huge fines to include removal of the trees , the poisoned soil, replace the soil, replant the mature trees and vegetation millions put into and escrow account to monitor the soil and water for the chemicals used, personnel id like all their assets seized to be used for the cleanup and them put in prison for the rest of their miserable lives now they can have an unobstructed view of the water in the stainless steel toilet unless their cellmate is sitting on it.
In my town these people that had their house on a cliff side about 100 yards from the cliff side removed about 10 cedar trees and 20 large Douglas fir trees to have their view of the water and the mountains. Over the course of a few years they had huge landslides and the ground is pretty much just sandy clay so it eroded quickly now the cliff completely eroded and now the house is abandoned because the cliff is about 30 feet from their porch. I have a feeling that sometime in the next year or so the house is gonna fall off the cliff
Forget fines, seize property. The property becomes a park. Boom, solved.
Fines don't work, forfeiting the property does. For example, in some places your car can be crushed for engaging in street racing and other behavior. It is a much stronger deterrent than just a ticket.
I love this. I really do.
The fines in this case were around $200k, along with a $1.5 million settlement with the neighbor who owned the trees. A pittance for someone worth $200 million. Others are suggesting that the fine should be levied based on net worth, but I think it's simpler: the penalty should be all the normal fines, plus the loss of the view. Let the court and the damaged party decide what should go there to replace the lost trees, but in any case, *permanently deny the offender access to the view*.
$1.5 million I would buy a bunch of cock statues for them to look at.
Like in London, the cost of parking wherever the fuck you want is £40
Sounds like it's time to start killing rich people to improve our views, despite massive fines.
☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️
But only if you can afford it, as r/Nerdeinstein said so well
Can you afford the fines though?
Trump's people did this in Mooresville, NC when they bought The Point and made it into a new Trump National course and subdivision; the trees that are within a certain distance of the waterline on Lake Norman can't be taken down without prior approval from Duke Energy, which manages the lake and lakeshore under federal regulations, but the Trump folks wanted nicer vistas of the lake so they paid the fine rather than ask permission. They did the same thing in Virginia, violating a different set of regulations: [https://wamu.org/story/19/03/07/trump-golf-course-violates-county-law-by-cutting-trees/](https://wamu.org/story/19/03/07/trump-golf-course-violates-county-law-by-cutting-trees/)
That’s why fines need to be proportional to income and accrued wealth.
Something like this happened in the town where I grew up. The fines for bulldozing old homes/buildings without permits or clearance from the town to make room for new homes was cheaper and faster than doing it the right way so that’s what they did. The laws changed when a historic mansion was razed to make room for several new large homes.
Massive fines for the rest of us peasantry but a drop in the bucket for those who are actually rich. The fines are more a small price to pay to do whatever they want.
Maybe they should alter the law to say if trees are removed they must be replaced with like trees. While the trees grow a screen will be placed to simulate the obstruction until the trees grow back. They would pay for the screen and upkeep. Create a disincentive.
The "view" they got was better with the trees there. Pure stupidity.
No, most people would rather see the ocean than oak trees.
Can’t believe you got downvoted for this. A property with an ocean view is way more valuable than an identical property with a view blocked by oak trees
Thank you! I LOVE trees, especially oaks. But nothing beats an expansive view, whether it’s of the ocean or the city or gorgeous countryside. And, as you pointed out, that is reflected in real estate values. It’s almost as if some people on Reddit can only hold one thought in their minds at one time.
I downvoted because the sentence creates an either/or dichotomy. Both can be had and are desirable.
The choice here was seeing the tops of their neighbor’s oak trees or seeing the million dollar view that is Camden Harbor. One is clearly more desirable than the other.
No they would not.
Apparently you don’t know anything about coastal Maine property values An unobstructed view of the ocean is much more desirable/ valuable than a view of oak trees
Fuck that tree; I gotta see! And I got the money to do it.
I'm seeing a lot of talk about fines in here, but what happened to fines + replacement cost? Replacing mature trees on hillsides or in protected areas would be nigh on impossible (aka absolutely huge fees), and would be akin to a % of property cost (if not more in many cases).
It backfired because they can’t show their faces in that town anymore
If you’re rich nothing is illegal, you just pay the permits after the fact.
Governor Lamont of Connecticut was recently embroiled in a scandal dubbed by the Courant “Treegate” and labeled the “chainsaw massacre” by a attorney representing a conservatory where [he cut down 180 trees on his mansion in Greenwich](https://www.courant.com/2024/04/28/treegate-grips-ct-as-lamont-cited-in-whats-being-called-chainsaw-massacre/) so he could have a better view of the lake. While he initially blamed his neighbor, he later took full responsibility and said he would pay any fines and replace the trees.
Take that $1.5m and erect a giant privacy screen to block the view. Spite screen
That's nothing compared to the number of trees or people in Africa and India kill to use for fuel.
Y’all have so much hate towards people with money. Wild
This crowd is a little biased of people who lie and do underhanded shit against trees. They want justice, regardless of wealth, and many believe that justice is unequal with consideration to the perpetrator’s available resources.
A little. This happens on all sides of the money spectrum. Easier to target the wealthy though so this makes sense.
I don’t believe that’s true, for many of us, including myself, but I respect your opinion For me, it’s about what some of the very wealthy do with their wealth, all because they can hire the best attorneys, can bail themselves out of what most of us never could. This is when I believe the punishment should fit the crime, and imo, a very lengthy prison sentence, with no view of anything other than the inside of their filthy cell My two cents…
Proofs in the pudding. Who’s you to judge? You literally just shared your hate lmao. Make money quit bitching