Man to pay $50,000 fine killing trees at Lake Tahoe

AP via Las Vegas Sun ^ | April 27, 2006

[JasonC]

Not odd, because everyone on earth knows he did it, including his lawyers and including the jury. They just wanted to let him get away with it, so they did.

[KoRn]

"Now that I've read this thread, I think I'll go kill a few trees myself."

I think I will also!

[Smokin' Joe]

Nah. He should have found a rare plant, brought one in, and claimed the shade was killing it. They would have probably cut the trees down for him.

[KoRn]

"Maybe because this guy admitted that he killed the trees, and OJ, was found not-guilty."

His trees.

[stuartcr]

OK

[bigfootbob]

"...who knows and who cares"

You should!

Not everyone knows the regs government sneak in with limited input from the citizens. Routinely, people here are sold a bill of goods as "land protections" without learning the devil in the details until you go for a renovation, or some other kind of permit and all of a sudden you find out the big arm of the law preventing you from using your property.

You're NEXT if you don't start watching your's and your neighbors backs from a predatory government.

[rkhampton]

That rankles my libertarian side. What exactly does the PRIVATE in "private property" mean, again?

Maybe I just feel like typing tonight, or maybe my anti-libertarian tendencies are showing themselves, but I though I would give you a personal example that would show you just how wrong you are.

Here in Florida, we have trees called mangroves along the waterfront, which absorb the wave action along the intercostal bays and prevent the sand from being stirred up, which in turn allows the sunlight to penetrate the water, which in turn allows the sea grasses to grow in the shallow waters, which in turn provides food for ... Well, I guess even a libertarian gets the picture.

Now it took a long time for those evil environmentalists to figure this out, along with thousands of other bits of information about the environment, but after they did, regulations followed and the environment has prospered.

Now, if we left it up to the individual's conscience to decide if he wanted to cut down the mangroves in front of his waterfront property, well guess what, there wouldn't be any mangroves and if you follow the causal link, there wouldn't be much life in the bay. That's why we have government regulation.

I know that this is going to, as you say "rankle your libertarian side", but we have to grow up and realize that we live in a society and what we do on our own property does affect other people.

[italianquaker]

nah, excuses are the tools of the weak and incompetent, know your rights, know the rules, stop playing the victim

[bpjam]

State law prohibits them buying the lake itself. Of course, if they did buy the lake it would save taxpayers in Nevada a tens of millions in upkeep each year. But you are still missing the point, it IS voluntary. If you don't like the rules, you don't have the buy. Nobody is being forced to buy property at Tahoe or anyplace else. This is completely discretionary purchase. If you want to make a theoretical argument about somebody who has owned land there for decades, that would be different.

Again, NOBODY CAN FORCE YOU TO BUY LAND OR A HOME IN A COMMUNITY WITH A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION!!!! If you were involuntarily included in an HOA without consent or the right to vote, I will be completely on your side just like I am to clients who fax city annexing or eminent domain. But nowhere have I seen that scenario presented in this discussion. HOA's are a response to the lack of governmental action and protection. They serve a purpose and if they stop serving that purpose then they should be disbanded and the members have that right under every state that I have seen thus far.

Lets me be clear. I am in favor of private property rights in an almost unlimited way. But I do not see Homeowners Associations as a threat to property ownership in all but the most extreme cases (which are usually already illegal under local laws or existing bylaws).

[William Tell]

bpjam said: "This is completely discretionary purchase. If you want to make a theoretical argument about somebody who has owned land there for decades, that would be different. "

Once again, this is not a home-owners association. The "majority", which consisted of many property owners in the area at the time, passed legislation which affected the property of minorities. The property which I own in Lake Tahoe has a house on it. The adjacent lot is vacant and was purchased from an owner whose right to build on it was violated by a tyrannical majority.

I am an economic beneficiary of this policy and I oppose the policy vehemently.

Secondly, CC&Rs have been routinely disregarded to the extent that they included racially discriminatory language. Unfortunately, gun-owners, for instance, are not yet recognized as a minority whose civil rights are routinely violated.

Widespread use of CC&Rs to control peoples' individual decisions regarding use of their property may be perfectly legal, but I propose that it is extremely unhealthy.

The situation in Lake Tahoe was a taking of people's property and was not related to anything agreed to by the property owners.

[bpjam]

As I said before, if you have a case where homeowners do not get a vote or an initial approval of restrictions on their properties then I'm in your camp. I'm oppossed to additional govt regulations on land use about 90% of the time. Your adjacent neighbor sounds, based on the statement you made, to have a very good claim against the authority which is preventing him from building. I've recommended at times and also joined with clients in suing builders, developers and governmental agencies when they harm my clients economic interests or their quality of life. But in most cases, these conflicts are forseeable and I let clients know upfront what they can and can't do and they get to make big decisions before they put up their money. If you have a claim of some kind, I can put you in touch with people in your area who might be able to advise and assist you.

[Atlas Sneezed]

When you buy the land, you buy it with the restrictions whether Federal or local already intact.

---

Under HOA laws, the owner alone decides what restrictions to put on his own property (to enhance its value). With governmental restrictions like TRPA, non-owners decide. It's that simple.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Were the mangroves there before the people moved in?

I can guarantee that the tree cutting issue in Tahoe is not about wildlife or the environment, but about aesthetics. How the shore is viewed from the lake.

And the rules essentially require owners to permit their views to diminish over time, as the "public" view is enhanced. That is an economic taking.

[rkhampton]

Were the mangroves there before the people moved in? I can guarantee that the tree cutting issue in Tahoe is not about wildlife or the environment, but about aesthetics.

When you get far enough south, pretty much every inch of the inter-coastal waterway, the water between the coast line and the barrier islands, is lined with mangroves, unless they've been cut down. I can't comment on the situation in Tahoe, because I don't live there.

Democracy cuts both ways. We can't allow an individual to do something that we can't allow everyone to do. We can't allow everyone to cut down their trees, so we don't let the individual do it either.

There may be a few 'old timer' out there in Tahoe that had these regulations thrust upon them, but I'd be willing to bet that the great majority of the Tahoe residents were aware of them when they purchased their properties and don't really have anything to complain about.

[bpjam]

HOA's are not actually laws, per se. And you don't get to decide them on your own for each homeowner. There is no point in having an HOA if everybody gets to decide their own rules. Governmental restrictions are another matter entirely. If the restrictions are in place before a person purchases a piece of land or a house, then I have no sympathy for them whatsoever because they agreed to the rules when they signed the contract. If the government passes some new laws or restrictions AFTER you purchased you land, I can provide you with some competent attorneys and other professionals in the Tahoe area who might be able to help you.