If the community owns the trees amenity value why don't they pay for it?

[Eric Frei]

A controversial headline but a nail hit on the head.

If the community owns the trees amenity value why don't they pay for it?

So many councils and tree activists use "amenity value" as a subjective value to place on the tree. There is no formula and it is open to any extremists interpretation.

Often the community rally to save a tree, often the tree is on private land, often the tree does not have any protection or status to fore-sake it.

The tree is on private land, it's size substantial and it commandeers AS4970's maximum TPZ of 707m2

The tree is situated sadly right in the middle of the major thoroughfare, right where every visitor will drive past or park under. The tree owner decides, due to substantial limb drop, to cut the tree down, the tree is old and no longer safe.

The community rallies the tree should stay, no matter what the tree is worthy of any expense to prolong it's life or protect visitors of it's death.

It is at this point your land and tree has been commandeered for public amenity, the community has spoken and decided that regardless of your situation the cause of the common good is at play, and of course the tree. You are one, the landowner. They are many and rally supporters from every corner. You are out numbered 10 to 1. The local council now gets roped into the affair, the local candidate a tree hugging greenie allies with the protesting community (for votes) to do all he can to "save the tree".

So, here we are, a great weight placed on the tree owner. To complicate issues the tree owner is also a business and relies on the local community to support their business. But the community has rallied and tells the owner that if they cut the tree down they will boycott the business sending it broke.

Is this how you want it to work in Australia?

No?

Well that is what you have.

Comments welcome.

[Darrell Mcleod]

Where is this tree?

[George Valentine]

Originally Posted by Eric Frei

A controversial headline but a nail hit on the head.

If the community owns the trees amenity value why don't they pay for it?

So many councils and tree activists use "amenity value" as a subjective value to place on the tree. There is no formula and it is open to any extremists interpretation.

Often the community rally to save a tree, often the tree is on private land, often the tree does not have any protection or status to fore-sake it.

The tree is on private land, it's size substantial and it commandeers AS4970's maximum TPZ of 707m2

The tree is situated sadly right in the middle of the major thoroughfare, right where every visitor will drive past or park under. The tree owner decides, due to substantial limb drop, to cut the tree down, the tree is old and no longer safe.

The community rallies the tree should stay, no matter what the tree is worthy of any expense to prolong it's life or protect visitors of it's death.

It is at this point your land and tree has been commandeered for public amenity, the community has spoken and decided that regardless of your situation the cause of the common good is at play, and of course the tree. You are one, the landowner. They are many and rally supporters from every corner. You are out numbered 10 to 1. The local council now gets roped into the affair, the local candidate a tree hugging greenie allies with the protesting community (for votes) to do all he can to "save the tree".

So, here we are, a great weight placed on the tree owner. To complicate issues the tree owner is also a business and relies on the local community to support their business. But the community has rallied and tells the owner that if they cut the tree down they will boycott the business sending it broke.

Is this how you want it to work in Australia?

No?

Well that is what you have.

Comments welcome.

Eric,

Do you know if after the tree owner made that decision, as you mention above, has the tree been assessed by any certified arborist, and if so, what was the arborist opinion...???

Cheers
George

[Apocalypsse]

Originally Posted by cruisin_long

Where is this tree?

I think he means this as a general question because its a fairly common issue where is tree needs/should go for whatever reason but the public decide to ignore the facts and go with their 'heart' to keep the tree at all costs.

[Eric Frei]

I am being generic and this can happen anywhere really.

But there is a specific case that I have been watching.

I'm still gathering more information as it appears I was right on the money with my "hunch" from a VTA. At the time though the owner then did not proceed with further testing but it came to my attention that a new manager has done testing.

I'll keep you updated soon as I find out more.

[Darrell Mcleod]

Originally Posted by Eric

But there is a specific case that I have been watching.

How come I thought that

[Brent Ferris]

Perhaps the owner should donate the tree (vs the land) to the city, so it could be under their care.

[Jeff Darby]

I think as long as the land owner/resident has good reason to remove...and not just leaf dropping into my gutters or I am always raking up leaves.

Real reasons to remove they should be granted permission to remove as long as they replace with a suitable specimen. After all it is their land which they have worked hard for...did the public help them with the mortgage repayments? and as far as being a business once more if it wasn't a product they needed or it wasn't convenient to shop there the public would not care a hoot if this person went under.

I feel this is a bluff and intimidation tacit and it would stress out the landowner to point he might reconsider. I have a tree down my backyard and if I wanted to remove it for a good reason my neighbour's opinion would not stop me!! If the shoe was on the other foot they would do as they please.imo and as far donating their land, all I can say is you must have plenty of land?

[pukunui]

It's a tough one.
But this sort of thing happens with lots of things with different levels of government saying what you can and can't do on "your" land.
Councils won't approve certain types/designs of building on certain blocks because of amenity and aesthetics, people in old houses can have them heritage listed meaning they can't do anything to them without approval and strict rules and the government can sell mining leases that will mean you have a longwall mine below your living room.

Not sure what the solution for the tree case is.
The fact is the tree does provide amenity value for the public/council so it would make sense that they pay something to maintain it.

Maybe one of the valuation methods could be used and a percentage put into a bond by both parties (that percentage being the hard part to work out) to maintain the tree. The public activist groups could be told to donate or shut up.


However, this is an important point, If the tree is assessed to be a hazard by a reputable Arborist then the amenity value shouldn't really come into it other than deciding which method of hazard abatement should be used.


I guess another point some might raise is "they bought the place with the tree on there (or planted it) and have benefited from it, they should have know that it would cost money to maintain it." and i agree to some degree but that's not really the point of this thread.

[Eric Frei]

Here's the specific case.

Chinderah Tavern Fig Tree

[Garry Brockley]

if these people want this tree to stay so badly they should pay for the up keep and insurance of the tree and the land under it, these costs should not be forced upon the land owner just because a thoughtless greenie type wants it to stay. but how would/could they be made to pay for it?

without getting a law passed that demonstrators of this type must be made to pay a sum towards the such an upkeep, then i don't see any way through.
or having a law/body to over see all of these cases and thier word is final, but the people on such a board would have to be kept secret to prevent outside influences on decisions.

why is it that people feel they have to interfere with other peoples business when its nothing at all to do with them?

[Kenny Koala]

It's not up to land holders to create green areas or stands of trees.

That is councils responsibilty and if the rent-a-crowd wants to have more trees than they had better start planting some.












ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY

[derwoodii]

Of all tyrranies, a tyrrany sincerely exercised for the good of it's victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end ... for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C.S. Lewis


I to struggle with this one. All would sook n moan fast if a developer proposed sumthin next door that failed expectations. All also be first to call Local Council seeking remedy using all and sundry methods to make your point. But alas when we don't need Gumnuts we are just critical of their attempts to find balance in decisions.

Trees are easy targets for emotional blackmail or subject defence and puttin a $ value muddies the water's even more. I never truly supported or believed in amenity value as alway used to defend or prosecute tree cases and sadly never to be heard without this need.

The few cases I have been involved in more often fail as Gumnut trys to please all, or are based upon poor initial ideas or even poorer choice of trees to protect.

Good government is rare, the Utopia we dream of is just a fantasy. Be grateful that we have some laws and even some crappy town planning controls to protect somethings. But be very wary of the daily loses of liberties that usually comes in very small increments as the damage is cumulative till we one day need a permit to wipe our asses.

[Darrell Mcleod]

Originally Posted by Eric

If the community owns the trees amenity value why don't they pay for it?

This is the most important question asked and should become a standard across this country in similar situations – really worth fighting for if anyone has the ‘gumnuts’

Bring on ATA and BTW how many members do we have right now paid up?

Seriously – these sorts of issues must be addressed – so we have a little old lady holding on to her title of land somewhere with a failing huge declining tree that needs some work that she cannot afford and is a ‘landmark’ as defined by some nuffer who could not care if a limb dropped and killed someone

It is hanging over a busy road

Her son is a forestry worker and knows how to fell em and will with some mates drop it backwards into her property – no charge

A permit is requested

All shite breaks loose and why?

I remember in my backyard I had a bifurcated – codominant; whatever you want to call it Mountain Ash and paid foolishly the $80.00 I think then for an inspection from the Shire of Yarra Ranges

He arrived to inspect and I let him out the back to have a lookies

Ten minutes later I went out thinking what the eff is this guy doing and asked him – ‘what is the verdict doc’?

He told me he was going to recommend the tree be cabled and kept.

I suggested – who will pay for that, the Shire of Yarra Ranges and over the life of the tree: will they pay for inspections etc into the future

He looked at me perplexed as I asked him the important one – how much is the fine if I cut it down without a permit and he replied - $500.00 – I think from memory

I told him the effing thing was coming down as I would not live under it any longer

Proof of the pudding is it did - legally

Point is though he tried to bluff me

I asked him if he would like the cheque now and within a week had my permit and from memory because the tree I think was deemed to be unsafe did not require a permit - some years ago now

He the council arborist is still with the Shire I think today and some could think the same c**p continues

Point is how these things are dealt with, where the tree is, who knows what is planned and how quick action is taken

A lot can be achieved and avoided just through action

As I said at the start - it is the 'gumnuts'