$100,000 to replace a $28,000 tree they didn't own but sold for $2,000 ???

   / $100,000 to replace a $28,000 tree they didn't own but sold for $2,000 ??? #21  
Because the compensation isn't on par with the loss.

If all you had to do was pay back an equal amount for what was stolen that wouldn’t be much of a deterrent for theft would it? It’s not like these clowns have 100k anyway so the fine could just as well be a million dollars.
 
   / $100,000 to replace a $28,000 tree they didn't own but sold for $2,000 ??? #22  
That depends entirely on how it's litigated.
 
   / $100,000 to replace a $28,000 tree they didn't own but sold for $2,000 ??? #24  
Unless it’s criminal intent, they need to put a reasonable price on the tree. It would be interesting to know how they came up with that number.
We have laws specifying value of timber trees, generally on a trespass the landowner will get triple the value, or else an amount based on stump size. Either way it’s enough to discourage theft.
It seems like this guy honestly believed that he owned the tree, and as I mentioned previously it sounds like he needed the money.
Now he needs even more.
 
   / $100,000 to replace a $28,000 tree they didn't own but sold for $2,000 ??? #26  
How is it government waste? It’s no secret the government takes destruction of park property seriously. It should be no surprise they’re prosecuting for cutting one of the largest trees in the state.
In the Northwest they sure do. Take for example all the pristine Seattle, Portland (and others) city parks. Once you get past all the tents, blue tarps, piles of garbage, old pallet boards, used syringes, etc. they are nice places to visit. NOT
 
   / $100,000 to replace a $28,000 tree they didn't own but sold for $2,000 ??? #27  
Seattle went from a tourist destination to worse than Detroit. What a mess and the local politicians don't seem to care much. Least my wife and I can go to Detroit and not worry about being accosted by some low life.

Actually quit carrying my pistol in Detroit as of late, least downtown that is. Excellent restaurants and gambling venues there now (if you like to gamble that is). We go for the food actually.

If I ever went to Seattle, you can bet I'd be armed.
 
   / $100,000 to replace a $28,000 tree they didn't own but sold for $2,000 ??? #28  
Unless it’s criminal intent, they need to put a reasonable price on the tree. It would be interesting to know how they came up with that number.
We have laws specifying value of timber trees, generally on a trespass the landowner will get triple the value, or else an amount based on stump size. Either way it’s enough to discourage theft.
It seems like this guy honestly believed that he owned the tree, and as I mentioned previously it sounds like he needed the money.
Now he needs even more.
Foresters do have formulas for landscape trees. That is where the $28000 in title came from
 
   / $100,000 to replace a $28,000 tree they didn't own but sold for $2,000 ??? #29  
In the Northwest they sure do. Take for example all the pristine Seattle, Portland (and others) city parks. Once you get past all the tents, blue tarps, piles of garbage, old pallet boards, used syringes, etc. they are nice places to visit. NOT

They actually are nice places. I went on a trip out there this summer. Besides a few crap holes Washington and Oregon are beautiful states. And Seattle isn’t nearly as bad as Portland. Cities aren’t my thing anyway but Seattle is no worse than average. Portland has been reduced to a city wide homeless camp.
 
   / $100,000 to replace a $28,000 tree they didn't own but sold for $2,000 ??? #30  
Tree law is something different. A tree has a value for lumber, but as a living tree planted in the ground, they become essentially priceless once they are old enough to not be able to replace. 100,000 doesn't sound like it is outside of some of the things I have heard for other old tree related cases.
Unless it’s criminal intent, they need to put a reasonable price on the tree. It would be interesting to know how they came up with that number.
We have laws specifying value of timber trees, generally on a trespass the landowner will get triple the value, or else an amount based on stump size. Either way it’s enough to discourage theft.
It seems like this guy honestly believed that he owned the tree, and as I mentioned previously it sounds like he needed the money.
Now he needs even more.

I don't think it matters if he says he "believed" he owned the tree or not. The survey was his responsibility and he signed a contract saying he had one done.
 
 
Top