Quote:
Originally Posted by treeseer  Spoken like a fanatic pool owner. bs. The tree was there first. That matters.
The neighbor is entitled to reasonable use of their land, not carte blanche to kill Chris' tree, as Ekka points out.
Yes after the pool goes in, there will be a hue and cry about litter. Kinda like building a house near the airport and then crying about the noise. |
And spoken like a true tree hugger.
Huge assumptions made that the tree will die! That is the BS here.
Funny how a pool requires council permission yet anybody can plant a tree, any type, any size, where ever they want, allow it to trespass all unregulated, that's wonderful. Perhaps if authorities had to have submitted landscape plans on plantings some of the disputes like this one wouldn't take place. Perhaps if root barriers had to be installed at fence lines this conversation wouldn't even be taking place?
Look through all of my postings and you'll see common expression of ensuring your tree is contained within your own property. Even to the point of root barriers installed at fence lines to prevent subterainial trespass.
The tree isn't protected, that itself says something.
So what's your theory, get everyone to mass plant along fence lines to dictate what neighbours can and cant do? Is that the American freedom you impose?
There's also regulations on pool health, fancy that, unlike trees cant have a derelict mosquito breeding hole ... but I sure have attended my fair share of neglected trees which have failed damaging neighbours property. Seems the tree people are really miles behind the real world in regulation, law and responsibility.