« DOW UP 350 POINTS MIDDAY! | Main | TOP SECRET DOCUMENT RELEASED »
November 28, 2007
$347,000 For Trimming Trees?
Everybody's got a horror story about a bureaucratic nightmare, but if you can top this one, call me collect at your earliest convenience.
Ann Collard was seven months pregnant with her third child in June when an abatement notice came from the Glendale Fire Department. She and her husband, Mike, were ordered to clear some foliage and maintain 5 feet of "vertical clearance between roof surfaces and overhanging portions of trees."
The Collards knew their oaks and sycamores needed a trim. And so they talked to neighbors, did a little research and called a recommended tree trimmer based in Orange County.
For $3,000, the guy said, he'd remove about 15% of the foliage and they'd be in the clear.
The Collards asked if a permit was necessary.
Not at all, said the licensed trimmer, who told the Collards he'd done lots of work in Glendale.
On the third day of the three-day job, the city's urban forester happened to be in the neighborhood, and noticed the tree trimmer doing his thing.
"She saw what was happening and said, 'Stop! Cease and desist!' " says Mike, a work-at-home software and computer guy.
Glendale has an indigenous tree protection ordinance that dates to the 1980s. It was enacted to discourage developers and homeowners from bulldozing or hacking trees willy-nilly. Earlier this year, because of citizen complaints that native trees were still being ruined, the city approved more restrictions and bigger fines.
None of which the Collards knew about.
They now admit that had they read the Fire Department notice closely, they would have seen in small print that a free permit was required to trim oak and sycamore branches larger than 1 inch in diameter. But it was an understandable oversight.
A week after her first visit, the urban forester was back, telling the Collards an arborist would come by soon to assess the damage. The Collards recall being told they might want to hire an attorney.
"That's when we realized the gravity of the situation," says Ann. "I was pregnant and crying, but it didn't help."
In August, the Collards got a visit from the arborist. She looked at the trees, took measurements and jotted down notes.
How bad could it be? The Collards began to anticipate the possibility of a fine, but it wasn't as if the trees were mauled. They looked pretty good, in fact.
Finally, on Oct. 1, a letter arrived. It was from Glendale's Neighborhood Services administrator.
"Dear Owner," it began. "The city of Glendale is committed to maintaining a community with quality streetscapes that include the care and well-being of protected indigenous trees."
The letter informed them they had improperly pruned 13 trees, some of them on city property because they were near the street, and some on their own property. The fine was listed on Page 2, where the Collards were informed they would be charged "two times the value of the damaged tree(s)."
"Total: $347,600."
"I about passed out," says Ann.
Posted by Post Scripts at November 28, 2007 03:40 PM
Comments
This is outrageous!!!!!
The original purpose for harsh fines, to punish and discourage those who willfully act in defiance of the law or who are egregious abusers, has long been abandoned. I prefer the old days when "servants" of the people were reasonable and severe fines were reserved for true offenders. Bureaucrats today seem to use the law to punish and intimidate regardless of circumstance and to push an agenda.
I noted two things of interest in this story:
On the third day of the three-day job, the city's urban forester happened to be in the neighborhood..."She saw what was happening...
In August, the Collards got a visit from the arborist. She looked at the trees,...
In both cases the person "in charge" was a woman. I hate to say it but in my experience women in power positions are often unreasonable, emotional and unforgiving, much more so than men in these situations...the exception is males who have been molded to the feminist tradition. Men aren't about nit picky rules as women often are...they look for the bigger violators. There are exceptions of course. I'm painting with a broad brush.
The other explanation is that these women are working the job as best they can and are compelled to enforce stupid rules and regs that need to be reigned in.
Either way this is OUTRAGEOUS!!!
Posted by: Tina at November 28, 2007 08:24 PM
The situation sounds like the dream of our own local http://treeaction.org/.
While they have made numerous past efforts over the course of many years to include private residential properties, they appear to have backed away from that….
Well, at least for the moment… They’ll come back to it later.
However, the underlying logic, if you can call it that, is that we insignificant humans do not “own” any land. It seems that in the minds of some; land ownership is a fiction; that we are merely the temporary stewards of some components of a piece of property; and it is government’s job (and the judiciary) to rein-in (or evict) any property owners to take it too far (in someone’s judgement).
Call it what you want: Socialism, Leninism, Stalinism, or Bousquet-ism:
www.marksorensen.net/LTE-Bousquet-1996.PDF
My responsive letter to the editor on Page 2 of the PDF was printed by CN&R, ER, and was read in full by Bruce Sessions on the air at the time….. I sure got a lot of “feed-back” on that one.
I should thank Tim Bousquete. For as much as his writings used to torque me, they were thought provoking, and drove me to step up my own involvement in government affairs.
It helps to better understand the thought processes that are the source of such government inanities and abuse as this tree trimming story.
As much as I thank him for all that…. I’m sure glad that he moved to Nova Scotia, Canada :- )
http://timbousquet.com/index.htm
Posted by: Mark Sorensen at November 29, 2007 10:12 AM