Posted on 02/11/2009 9:01:52 PM PST by TheEaglehasLanded
Why not kill the tree and then say, “look it is dead”
How do you kill a tree? Hook it up to a 2 gallon RoundUp intravenous drip?
Seriously, I believe if you want to just trim it, you probably can. If the limb you are trimming is greater than 8” in diam, though, I believe you need a permit. Trust me, it’s not worth playing games with this around here; it’d be like desecrating an American flag on a military base, maybe worse. If the town could figure out a way to fine you, they would make your life hell.
OK, I found it. Dead or alive makes no difference, LMAO!
http://www.ci.walnut-creek.ca.us/header.asp?genericId=2&catId=10&subCatId=941#tree
“Any tree, dead or alive, public or private, that measures 28 inches in circumference when measured 54 inches above grade is protected under the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Ord. 1966). Homeowners, developers, and contractors should review the Ordinance and guidelines prior to developing plans.
Initial tree removal applications should be first submitted to the City Arborist. At no cost, the City Arborist may grant a Tree Removal Permit if he/she makes the findings related, but not limited, to disease, species (such as Blue Gum), form, structure, danger of falling, vector hosting, or utility interference.
Note: A tree that drops leaves or needles in not a valid reason for removal.
If the City Arborist cannot grant a Tree Removal Permit based on the findings and the homeowner still wishes to have the tree removed, an application must then be submitted to the Zoning Administrator (or the highest approving body based on the type(s) of application). The Zoning Administrator will hold a public hearing on the tree removal request and render a decision based on the findings contained in the Ordinance.
Back to top
Good idea. Just do it slowly.
That’s nothing in Asia, to be honest.
No, Rachel Carson’s lasting legacy is going to be the utter depopulation of Africa.
For starters, you can eat mass quantities of DDT with no ill effects.
And, it turns out most of the “DDT-caused” wildlife problems weren’t caused by DDT at all.
No spin from Spooner. Thanks for the new tagline!
Wait until Americans start paying $5 for gas again, while at the same time, their “President” is reversing policies that allow drilling on “their” own soil.
But you can't chop them down without getting a permit and of course in some towns people fight this as it takes away from the "beauty" of the town. Tack on that the same trees crack roads and sidewalks and grow into pipes backing up sewers and storm drains. Which most insurance plans won't cover and good luck suing the city.
You guys need to learn to turn it around. Two years ago, a contractor for my ‘green city’, that was hauling cement, crashed into my lot and took out a huge oak tree. They offered me nothing and my insurance company was stalling.
I offered to ‘settle’ for a few thousand bucks and they laugh at me in the face like I was insane. Little did they know my background in horticulture and landscape architecture. I know the true ‘value’ of trees. It’s not mythical either....there is a dollar amount per caliber inch depending on species.
All I had to do was go out and get a replacement bid for a 24” diameter tree, planted in the exact spot(which would have taken a crane)..and suddenly they were offering me 10,000 bucks to settle....LOL
Moral of the story...use their silly laws against them at every opportunity. My final settlement after they pissed me off was over 15,000.
They scratched my driveway...took out some crepe myrtles...etc. I was willing to let that kind of silly crap go...but they pissed me off.
If I had been smart, I would have sued for the ‘toxic oil’ the cement truck spilled on my land in the crash and gotten damages for ‘future’ generations!
LOL!
the resulting beetle infestation followed by a few forest fires changed that policy.
Is it the trees that are a problem, or is it a lot of uncleared underbrush? Also I heard that they have been having a twelve year drought and the temperature was 120 degrees. I guess all the global warming has gone down there, because we haven’t been having it up here this winter.
It’s both, per my read. Don’t forget they have Eucalyptus trees, which, if you’re not familiar, shed very thin layers of “bark” (it’s not coarse bark like oak/walnut trees, it’s like your skin, it sheds in thin layers and also hangs off the trees) in prodigious quantities; this would be like construction-paper in terms of how quickly even a tiny spark could catch it afire....and then the trees themselves are very gummy and flammable, much more so than oak, elm, etc; So, if you had a bunch of scrub brush, 120 degrees, and all the detritus from these trees, OMG, it will catch and burn like mad.
Been told that Eucalyptus can spark up to 7 miles...makes it a hard fuel to deal with. And they tend to get hollowed out with age and blow up real good in wild land fires...
These people are no longer ‘believers’ in a ‘righteous cause’..they are cult members without the ability to think for themselves.
I knew there was a “green” angle to the brushfires.
We’ve heard the same about California brushfires and I assumed that Australia had the same idiotic policies.
“Greens” value plants and animals more than humans so they don’t give a rip for all those people who died.
Of course, being alive and not burnt up by a fire is some consolation.
A family in Victoria was heavily fined because they cleared a firebreak around their property. They were dragged through the courts - treated like criminals.
Their house is now the only one standing in the area.
They were labelled law breakers, fined $50,000 and left emotionally and financially drained.
But seven years after the Sheahans bulldozed trees to make a fire break — an act that got them dragged before a magistrate and penalised — they feel vindicated. Their house is one of the few in Reedy Creek, Victoria, still standing.
...Although Liam Sheahan’s 2002 decision to disregard planning laws and bulldoze 250 trees on his hilltop property hurt his family financially and emotionally, he believes it helped save them and their home on the weekend. “The house is safe because we did all that,” he said as he pointed out his kitchen window to the clear ground where tall gum trees once cast a shadow on his house. “We have got proof right here. We are the only house standing in a two-kilometre area.”...Mr Sheahan is still angry about his prosecution, which cost him $100,000 in fines and legal fees.
“The council stood up in court and made us to look like the worst, wanton environmental vandals on the earth. We’ve got thousands of trees on our property. We cleared about 247,” he said.
Maybe if one has one of these trees in a position to pose a fire hazard to one’s house, and failing the permit process for removal, one could file some sort of legal statement (with a copy to the homeowner’s insurance company) that the homeowner attempted to remediate an obvious fire hazard and was prevented from doing so by City government- putting the responsibility on them if the house burns down as a result.
If it were me I really wanted to get unpleasant about it, I’d sift through their fire codes and set one department against another until I was such a PITA that they’d either grant a permit or at best, come cut the thing down themselves.
Dr. Bill Wattenburg on KGO AM Radio in San Francisco used to talk about this. California's forests used to clear out the tinder-like underbrush with periodic fires. If I recall correctly, he pointed out that the fires would let many of the old-growth trees stand, and they would recover, while removing the accumulation of underbrush. Now, we put out those fires, and the underbrush becomes thicker and dryer- so now when there's a wildfire, it it's much hotter and destroys everything in it's path.
October 12, 1999 (with edits on November 7, 2001)
by Dr. Bill Wattenburg
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.