"John Bachman" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:33:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
"John Bachman" wrote in message
. ..
Your town has an ordinance that requires a homeowner to get a permit
to cut down a tree on his own property? Yikes!
Not a totally bad idea, for two reasons:
1) People sometimes think they can cut down huge trees without the help of
a
professional. But, there's a certain order in which to do these things, to
assure that falling branches don't cause problems. To use the analogy of a
building permit, which most people accept, why not have a permit process
for
removing trees? Let's face it: A significant portion of the population is
just plain stupid. Sounds like a good idea to have someone knowledgable
stop
by, interview the budding lumberjack, and make sure they have a proper
plan
in place for 1000 lb chunks of falling wood.
Requiring the taxpayers to hire a tree nanny because some people are
too dumb to know how to safely cut down a tree can be extended to the
myriad of things that people are dumb about. Follow that logic and we
have a town hall full of tree nannies, snowblowing nannies, water
garden nannies, etc. Pretty soon you need to pass a test before you
can buy a Felco pruning tool.
Got a problem with building permits, too?
I also think it would be wise
if the permit required the lumberjack to pay every single penny of a
neighbor's property damage. Override their deductible, in other words.
Most
decent people would offer this, but some people aren't decent.
I think that we have plenty of lawyers at the ready with liability
suits. No need for additional permit requirements to enforce
accountablity.
That's silly. Nobody should even have to pick up the phone and call a lawyer
to retrieve their $250 or $500 deductible. There's a simpler way, and it
already exists. Make the permit a legal contract. The local judge can
introduce you to jail food if you mouth off and refuse to pay. This sort of
thing happens with a fair amount of regularity, right in the same courtroom
as traffic tickets.
2) A library is a place where OTHER people go to read about trees and
plants. So, we have people who MIGHT want to take down a tree for the
wrong
reasons, after doing absolutely zero research. Example: When I moved to my
new house last September, the old lady across the street came over and
said
EXACTLY this: "Hi...my name is Helen. Let me tell you about that stupid
tree
of mine, before it upsets you". Her "problem" is an ancient sycamore which
has the nerve to drop bark on her lawn all the time. At certain times of
year, it blows across the street to my property. I don't mind. That's what
sycamores do, like lobsters moulting. But, she is convinced that the tree
is
diseased, and that 3 tree services and a guy from the township are
withholding information from her. She's probably telling other people that
*I* am in error, too, by telling her that the tree is normal.
So, why not have someone from the town stop by, find out her reasons for
removing the tree, and if the problem is "mess" or "maintenance", see if
the
neighbors like the tree enough to pitch in now and then? If not, give her
the permit. My crazy neighbor has a lawn guy who handles leaves & bark,
but
if she didn't, I'd be happy to wander over there and rake up the bark.
Tree
saved, problem solved.
Yup, ignorant people do dumb things. "Momma always said, 'stupid is
as stupid does'" - Forrest Gump I am not willing to pay taxes to keep
the ignorant from doing what they do, I just cannot afford that much.
Your local building inspectors probably sit on their tails for a few hours a
week. Let them do it. You're already paying them.
Why should this matter to you? A big shade tree is worth however many tons
of air conditioning. The number doesn't matter, but it's large. Got any
idea
how much heat is radiated by an unshaded blacktop driveway? Which magical,
easily replaceable and 100% clean source to you get electricity from?
Of course I care. But that does not necessarily translate into more
laws, more bureacrats and more taxes.
JMHO
John
|