Dalmatian90
Addicted to ArboristSite
http://www.telegram.com/article/20081127/NEWS/811270462/1004/NEWS04
And looking at the stumps...they sure weren't as big or historic as the article makes it seem!
2 Maples, $38,100...
- Thread starter Dalmatian90
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
http://www.telegram.com/article/20081127/NEWS/811270462/1004/NEWS04
And looking at the stumps...they sure weren't as big or historic as the article makes it seem!
So thats 113,100 bucks those people got with the flooding thing included.
Not a bad haul, those people gotta love thier town, lol.
Ya gotta love Lewis Tree - good old fashioned line hackers.
Not a bad haul, those people gotta love thier town, lol.
Ya gotta love Lewis Tree - good old fashioned line hackers.
John Paul Sanborn
Above average climber
Those look like some large sugar maples.
Since they are probably irreplaceable at size, there was a multiple plant replacement formula used.
My assumption is that the city employee assumed they were on city property, but in this area they were on right of way only. I own to the centerline of the county highway as do my neighbors across the street. If the city authorized cutting down my bur oak w/o notification you can bet I would be looking for recompense.
The article does not say that the value of the trees was 38k, but the damages awarded were.
So there was probably maintenance in the in the Cost of Cure estimations. And since it was a negligence case, there could have been a multiplier of double or triple damages.
Adkpk
Addicted to ArboristSite
Lewis has been working with a couple of crews in the town I work in the past couple of weeks doing line clearance. So far so good from what I see.
Rftreeman
Addicted to ArboristSite
don't blame the line guys, they were just doing their jobs, the fault falls on the dip#### that told them to cut the trees, I get tired of people coming down on the line clearance guys when something like this happens but those that do are also the very same that are kissing the line clearance guys butt when the power gets knocked off by a huge tree that has fallen on the lines.
OLD CHIPMONK
ArboristSite Guru
Gentlemen: National Grid seems to have been within their rights ! There seem to be some omissions in the above article ! Surely National Grid posesses a "Right-of Way" for maintaining their power-lines ! The "Right-of-Way" apparently encompassed both trees ! Therefore they had every legal right to proceed with the removals ! A further observation was the "Homeowner's Claim" of owning one-half of a " Highway" ! Doubtful, where "Federal & State Highway Funds" are involved ! In conclusion, may I suggest an immediate "Appeal Process", seeking a reversal of this verdict ! Thank You !
:monkey: :greenchainsaw:
:monkey: :greenchainsaw:
Bigus Termitius
Addicted to ArboristSite
True story...besides, looks like they did a fine job on that trim....though I think I could have performed just a bit better proper pruning cut on those stumps.
It will be real hard for the neighborhood kids to get electrocuted climbing those trees now.
I hope those folks go and spend that money on a nice hybrid for themselves and take a trip out west...or something.
Bigus Termitius
Addicted to ArboristSite
Now you’re talking too much sense with too much fact...that's not good, and is rarely received.
We have no problems removing trees that are within the ROW. Generally, we try and work with the neighboring HO/LO, but when push comes to shove...the trees on our ROW come down...legally.
Never too many problems at all, folks around here don't watch cartoons.
They use their electricity more productively, so I suppose it means more to them.
John Paul Sanborn
Above average climber
I did not say they did, but that they may, and the city employee might have mistakenly assumed that he had a right to allow removal.
What I said was that I own up to the centerline of the county highway that fronts my property, and there is a right of way clause to my title. I've owned two properties with such lotline boundaries, the other one was on a rural state highway WI-23.
When they resurfaced the road, it shifted the centerline enough to take a 1/4 acre (asymmetrical lot with the road being the longest leg of the property)
The trees are my property, if you remove them without consultation it could be considered an unlawful taking of my property. If I can prove in a court of law that you were not following Best Practices, or were justified in your actions the company can be held liable for destruction.
These cases are few and far between, but they do happen. The assumption that the ROW forester can act with impunity in the ROW can cause a lot of problems.
And this sums it up, IMHO. Communication. It is always best to talk with everyone involved. Some say they don't have the time. However, certainly in this instance a little discussion could have saved the town almost 40K.
You would think that if these trees were on the ROW or city property entirely, that the settlement would not have happened. I suspect there are issues involved that were not made clear in the article.
Sylvia
Bigus Termitius
Addicted to ArboristSite
Different states are different.
Take Oregon for example(quickest reference I could find)
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/758.html
Reads like impunity within the ROW to me.
Perhaps Wisconsin is different.
Are the trees on the utility's ROW in Wisconsin your property or the property of the utility?
In any event, I would agree that the trees on your adjacent property are indeed your property, but even then, it's my understanding that they can still be pruned and even removed if need be.....without civil liability I'm sure.
That certainly needs to be proven, but more often than not, if a tree is a utility forester's concern, then it's likely easy enough to do...and a HO is likely to comply without a juvenile self-serving fit. And even then they can tell it to the judge.
I don't think a true forester, in his right or not, is going to go down the line and exercise impunity on unnecessary removals. It's not in the best interest of time and money..i.e. "the budget."
Nevertheless, we have no troubles with any removals within the ROW here, and very little trouble outside of it. Most the time folks are calling in asking for it.
My point of contact is a utility forester of 25 years. He'll tell you there is not a tree within striking distance that he can't find something enough wrong with to necessitate removal legally. With all I've learned, and see, I believe him. (Too many folks take no notice of their trees until they are on the ground.)
If there is trouble, then the customer is encouraged to read or re-read the contract for service that they signed.
Even then, again, it has to be worth the effort.
What do you think of those large sugar maple removals? Unjustified?
Hard to tell from the pics. Hopefully, the HO will replant something appropriate and someone learns a big lesson on proper channels.
Bigus Termitius
Addicted to ArboristSite
I suspect you're right.
Also, communication is absolutely paramount. The few confrontations that I've had have all ended successfully. Initially, I'm getting a cussing, when I'm done explaining they are laughing and joking asking if I do work on the side.
I feel I have a well balanced approach to tree care, utility service reliability, and public safety. When I express that balance during the course of a conversation, they know I'm not there to hack, and they are often amazed at how good the tree looks when I'm done. It's not the hard trim back they have been accustom to (which warrants the initial cussing). This does three things, provides the best tree care possible, best aesthetics possible, and often best trim cycle duration.
Dalmatian90
Addicted to ArboristSite
One of the Massachusetts guys can correct me, as I'm no expert in CT or MA laws but I have a pretty good understanding.
In both states, the utility companies would not have easements that allow them to trim the trees w/o permission from someone. Either they're on private property and treated as such, or they're within the highway right of way and thus considered public shade trees. This is different from the ROWs they acquire for running utility lines across country which grant them the rights to enter the property, control vegetation, etc.
The utility companies are allowed to use the highway right of way, but do not have seperate easements.
In Connecticut if I, as the adjacent landowner, do not give permission there is an appeals process to the town's Tree Warden (town roads) or the Commissioner of Transportation (state roads) for the utilities to seek authority to trim the trees.
My guess here is that Douglas' Tree Warden gave permission to remove the trees believing they bases were within the road right of way. Even that's odd, since unless it's an emergency removal the trees need to be posted for a period of time before removal. If the property owners lived on the property, they should have known this was coming -- I don't know if there is any requirement for mailing notice to absentee landowners adjacent to the work, etc.
Ownership of roads in Connecticut depend on when and how they were originally established. Some are owned fee simple by the state or town -- the underlying land is public property in perputity unless it's sold. Others are just one step above being a true right of way -- it is considered public property but if the road is discontinued, ownership reverts back to the centerline to the adjacent property owners however a private ROW will continue to exist for all property owners along that road who need to use it to access their property. Some states the town roads are true ROWs -- you own to the centerline, the public simply has a right of way across your land.
In both states, the utility companies would not have easements that allow them to trim the trees w/o permission from someone. Either they're on private property and treated as such, or they're within the highway right of way and thus considered public shade trees. This is different from the ROWs they acquire for running utility lines across country which grant them the rights to enter the property, control vegetation, etc.
The utility companies are allowed to use the highway right of way, but do not have seperate easements.
In Connecticut if I, as the adjacent landowner, do not give permission there is an appeals process to the town's Tree Warden (town roads) or the Commissioner of Transportation (state roads) for the utilities to seek authority to trim the trees.
My guess here is that Douglas' Tree Warden gave permission to remove the trees believing they bases were within the road right of way. Even that's odd, since unless it's an emergency removal the trees need to be posted for a period of time before removal. If the property owners lived on the property, they should have known this was coming -- I don't know if there is any requirement for mailing notice to absentee landowners adjacent to the work, etc.
Ownership of roads in Connecticut depend on when and how they were originally established. Some are owned fee simple by the state or town -- the underlying land is public property in perputity unless it's sold. Others are just one step above being a true right of way -- it is considered public property but if the road is discontinued, ownership reverts back to the centerline to the adjacent property owners however a private ROW will continue to exist for all property owners along that road who need to use it to access their property. Some states the town roads are true ROWs -- you own to the centerline, the public simply has a right of way across your land.
Last edited:
Rftreeman
Addicted to ArboristSite
R.O.W only gives the utility, state or who ever permission to USE the property, that doesn't mean they own it so if a utility company or other agent comes on your property and cuts down a mature tree without permission then they are at fault, when I worked utility we had a book that we kept that had a permission slip signed and date by the land owner giving us permission to cut down said trees and said tree were marked with green ribbon and in some cases were even mapped out.
John Paul Sanborn
Above average climber
All they have to do is put a flyer on the door, but if there is not contact at all...
In WI I think they have the right to trim, but I know they have had legal issues with sub standard methodology.
Gopher is in and out of court as expert witness for a co-op in the north west corner of the state. Most of it is due to poor past practice that now has to be corrected and the LO's (co-op members too) are ballistic about removal of dead/dieing topped conifers. One problematic area around a forested lake has trees opening breakers several times a month
but a few people do not want good clearance done, and filed injunction after injunction.Anyone want to pay $15 for a legal opinion?
http://law.justanswer.com/:laugh:
pbtree
Addicted to ArboristSite
I concur, but please do not wish they head west - there are enough wackos out here already who sue you for picking a leaf up off their lawn without asking first...
