Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boston.com)   Blogger is incredulous that his neighbor has the right to cut down a tree, on the neighbor's own property, so he goes whining to the city. Not surprisingly, quite a few people have a problem with his point of view   (boston.com) divider line 243
    More: Asinine, public property, nearest neighbor search, private property  
•       •       •

17540 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jan 2014 at 12:10 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



243 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-21 01:39:32 AM  

ArkAngel: Is it crazy or un-American to suggest that, at a certain point, a tree is no longer one person's private property per se, and belongs to the community?

Yes.


Both of these.
 
2014-01-21 01:41:20 AM  

mikaloyd: bikkurikun: No, it is the other way around. Freedom is for everyone, not just people rich enough to own property. Property ownership at most is for the duration of an individual's lifespan, and usually takes shorter as people sell and move. The community outlives the individual, and hence the needs of the community/society outweigh the needs of the individual regardless of what he owns. And you don't take away property rights, you limit them. Again because no one lives, and therefore owns property, until eternity.

Trees also are not immortal or permanent.


Considering there are trees older than the great pyramids they're the closest thing to permenant short of mountains.
 
2014-01-21 01:43:21 AM  
Neighbor is a douche for chopping down a perfectly good, 100 year old tree.

Blogger is a douche for the overly-entitled, whiny, all-about-what-I-want (see "I liked that tree" comments) claptrap.
 
2014-01-21 01:43:52 AM  

Harry_Seldon: mikaloyd: Trees also are not immortal or permanent.


The Hundred Horse Chestnut laughs at your puny Califonia Redwoods.

/ for the forgetful

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Horse_Chestnut (copy/pasta)
 
2014-01-21 01:46:44 AM  

Harry_Seldon: mikaloyd: Trees also are not immortal or permanent.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 850x549]


You can level an entire neighborhood if you bring one of these down.

That said, the article mentions a single tree removed, in a backyard, as part of an improvement project.

Surely there is an acceptable middle ground between living like a bunch of tree elves and a stumpy wasteland.
 
2014-01-21 01:51:30 AM  

iheartscotch: Harry_Seldon: mikaloyd: Trees also are not immortal or permanent.

The Hundred Horse Chestnut laughs at your puny Califonia Redwoods.

/ for the forgetful

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Horse_Chestnut (copy/pasta)


Pando collectively laughs at your Hundred Horse Chestnut.
 
2014-01-21 01:52:27 AM  
Guys like this gives liberals a bad name.

He isn't a liberal, liberals are pro-economic regulation and anti-social regulation.

This guy is a totalitarian.  Pro-Economic and Pro-Social regulation.
 
2014-01-21 01:57:50 AM  

iheartscotch: Harry_Seldon: mikaloyd: Trees also are not immortal or permanent.

The Hundred Horse Chestnut laughs at your puny Califonia Redwoods.

/ for the forgetful

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Horse_Chestnut (copy/pasta)


And the bristle cone pines laugh at such a youngone, methusala is 4,845 years old and a newly discovered (and yet unnamed) specimen is 5,064 years old.
 
2014-01-21 02:02:38 AM  

ByOwlLight: iheartscotch: Harry_Seldon: mikaloyd: Trees also are not immortal or permanent.

The Hundred Horse Chestnut laughs at your puny Califonia Redwoods.

/ for the forgetful

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Horse_Chestnut (copy/pasta)

Pando collectively laughs at your Hundred Horse Chestnut.


Hey now! The Hundred Horse Chestnut holds the Guinness world record for greatest tree girth measured at 190 ft in 1780. Granted, Pando is likely the oldest organism in existence and the heaviest; but, did the Queen Aragon and her 100 guards take a smoke break under Pando? I think not!
 
2014-01-21 02:04:54 AM  

bikkurikun: six-n-tombstone:

The D*bag in the article is a renter, if having no trees to look at offends him soooooo much then he can move out at the end of his lease and go live in the woods. He has no permanent residence there.

Define permanent. Especially in residential areas, houses get bought and sold all the time. My parents could never afford to buy a house, but lived in the same neighbourhood all their lives, and were active in the community.  I have owned property since I got out of college, yet I've sold, moved and bought new property 5 times since then and never cared much about become active and involved in the community I lived in.  Who is a more permanent resident and who is more invested in the community?

Unless you own an estate that has been in your family for generations, most property owners in residential areas don't live in the same house for more than 20 years.  So if there is a hundreds of years old tree on your property that makes the community as a whole a nicer place, you shouldn't have the right to cut it down just because you 'own' the property for a number of years.


In other words he does not  OWN the property he lives in. He does not pay property taxes on it, he has no investment in the neighborhood because it is easier for him to pack up and move, if he so chooses. Or his landlord can decide not to renew his lease and make him move. Just like your parents did not own the property they lived in, they too could be tossed out by the landlord, ergo not considered to have investment in the nearby community. The fact they were allowed to stay in their place for over 20 years only means they were on good terms with the landlord nothing more. I don't care how many properties you owned. Nor do I care if you think I shouldn't cut down a tree on my property, it is not your property; you don't get to make the decision. Don't like it tough.
 
2014-01-21 02:06:25 AM  

Asa Phelps: Stopped reading at "my landlord".


Stopped reading at "progressive city'.

Off the top of my head: Honolulu, Seattle, Boulder, Portland, San Fransisco, San Jose, and many more are all magnitudes more progressive than Boston.
 
2014-01-21 02:09:22 AM  

tomerson: Asa Phelps: Stopped reading at "my landlord".

Stopped reading at "progressive city'.

Off the top of my head: Honolulu, Seattle, Boulder, Portland, San Fransisco, San Jose, and many more are all magnitudes more progressive than Boston.


San Francisco has better chowder.
 
2014-01-21 02:09:23 AM  

Brainsick: You think that's bad? My asshole neighbor (who moved in AFTER I was already here) tore down a historic shed in his backyard. When I complained that now he could see me in the altogether, he called me a stoner and suggested I was stealing from other neighbors! What a douche...


Considering he is in jail for stealing, drugging and violating his parole; your trolling is invalid.
 
2014-01-21 02:11:47 AM  

six-n-tombstone: bikkurikun: six-n-tombstone:

The D*bag in the article is a renter, if having no trees to look at offends him soooooo much then he can move out at the end of his lease and go live in the woods. He has no permanent residence there.

Define permanent. Especially in residential areas, houses get bought and sold all the time. My parents could never afford to buy a house, but lived in the same neighbourhood all their lives, and were active in the community.  I have owned property since I got out of college, yet I've sold, moved and bought new property 5 times since then and never cared much about become active and involved in the community I lived in.  Who is a more permanent resident and who is more invested in the community?

Unless you own an estate that has been in your family for generations, most property owners in residential areas don't live in the same house for more than 20 years.  So if there is a hundreds of years old tree on your property that makes the community as a whole a nicer place, you shouldn't have the right to cut it down just because you 'own' the property for a number of years.

In other words he does not  OWN the property he lives in. He does not pay property taxes on it, he has no investment in the neighborhood because it is easier for him to pack up and move, if he so chooses. Or his landlord can decide not to renew his lease and make him move. Just like your parents did not own the property they lived in, they too could be tossed out by the landlord, ergo not considered to have investment in the nearby community. The fact they were allowed to stay in their place for over 20 years only means they were on good terms with the landlord nothing more. I don't care how many properties you owned. Nor do I care if you think I shouldn't cut down a tree on my property, it is not your property; you don't get to make the decision. Don't like it tough.


Ah, no. You see, renters have rights here, you cant just toss them out. And most people dont rent fron individual landlords, but rather cooperations that are set up with the specific pirpose of providing housing for the working class who cant afford ownership. Even jf you dont have money, you still have rights here.
 
2014-01-21 02:12:06 AM  

tomerson: Asa Phelps: Stopped reading at "my landlord".

Stopped reading at "progressive city'.

Off the top of my head: Honolulu, Seattle, Boulder, Portland, San Fransisco, San Jose, and many more are all magnitudes more progressive than Boston.


Hell, the capital of Texas is probably more progressive than Boston =) Too many Catholics in Boston's power structure for it to be a real progressive city.
 
2014-01-21 02:14:27 AM  

Harry_Seldon: tomerson: Asa Phelps: Stopped reading at "my landlord".

Stopped reading at "progressive city'.

Off the top of my head: Honolulu, Seattle, Boulder, Portland, San Fransisco, San Jose, and many more are all magnitudes more progressive than Boston.

San Francisco has better chowder.


A little know fact; every time I read the word chowder; I also hear John F. Kennedy say the word "chowDAH" in my mind.

/ it's quite maddening
 
2014-01-21 02:15:26 AM  

Brainsick: /blogger is a douche, so are people who think that 'owning' a house means they can do whatever they want on the property
//9/10ths of you, I'm sure a bank actually owns whatever you are claiming is 'yours'
///renter


You are clearly a renter and fairly naive.

The bank owns my mortgage because that's how it works.  But when I claim it's 'mine' (quoting because you did on 'yours') I assure you that if someone gets hurt on my property they will sue me and not the bank.  The bank doesn't pay one red cent towards 'my' property taxes.  Should I have called the bank when a pipe burst?  With the way you think it's 'their' pipe and not mine.  Same for the tree that cost me $400 to get cut down lest its dying self smashed my house.

I pay for it, I pay the property taxes, I pay for the upkeep....face it you whiny biatch, it's MINE and I can do whatever I want with the property.

As a matter of fact, I may cut down a random tree in my yard just to do it.  I'll find the one with the most squirrel nests.  BECAUSE I CAN.

/Nah, love my damn squirrels.
 
2014-01-21 02:15:46 AM  

robodog: tomerson: Asa Phelps: Stopped reading at "my landlord".

Stopped reading at "progressive city'.

Off the top of my head: Honolulu, Seattle, Boulder, Portland, San Fransisco, San Jose, and many more are all magnitudes more progressive than Boston.

Hell, the capital of Texas is probably more progressive than Boston =) Too many Catholics in Boston's power structure for it to be a real progressive city.


I thought Hell was Houston?
 
2014-01-21 02:16:53 AM  

shtychkn: Guys like this gives liberals a bad name.

He isn't a liberal, liberals are pro-economic regulation and anti-social regulation.

This guy is a totalitarian.  Pro-Economic and Pro-Social regulation.


Also, he's a COCK, and libs don't have one.
 
2014-01-21 02:20:11 AM  
FTFA: I may be wrong but

Took you a while, but you got there eventually
 
2014-01-21 02:23:07 AM  

robodog: mikaloyd: bikkurikun: No, it is the other way around. Freedom is for everyone, not just people rich enough to own property. Property ownership at most is for the duration of an individual's lifespan, and usually takes shorter as people sell and move. The community outlives the individual, and hence the needs of the community/society outweigh the needs of the individual regardless of what he owns. And you don't take away property rights, you limit them. Again because no one lives, and therefore owns property, until eternity.

Trees also are not immortal or permanent.

Considering there are trees older than the great pyramids they're the closest thing to permenant short of mountains.


Bout 4 thousand years for some ancient pines blasted to shiat by lightning in the Sierras. Maybe a couple thousand years for some giant Sequoias. but most trees meet their fates much much sooner than that.
 
2014-01-21 02:25:57 AM  

KidneyStone: Brainsick: /blogger is a douche, so are people who think that 'owning' a house means they can do whatever they want on the property
//9/10ths of you, I'm sure a bank actually owns whatever you are claiming is 'yours'
///renter

You are clearly a renter and fairly naive.

The bank owns my mortgage because that's how it works.  But when I claim it's 'mine' (quoting because you did on 'yours') I assure you that if someone gets hurt on my property they will sue me and not the bank.  The bank doesn't pay one red cent towards 'my' property taxes.  Should I have called the bank when a pipe burst?  With the way you think it's 'their' pipe and not mine.  Same for the tree that cost me $400 to get cut down lest its dying self smashed my house.

I pay for it, I pay the property taxes, I pay for the upkeep....face it you whiny biatch, it's MINE and I can do whatever I want with the property.

As a matter of fact, I may cut down a random tree in my yard just to do it.  I'll find the one with the most squirrel nests.  BECAUSE I CAN.

/Nah, love my damn squirrels.


This is the best post. "Sure the bank technically owns the mortage, but I still pay for everything so you're dumb." You can't do just whatever with the property either. Removing trees, maybe. But planting trees? Building structures? Painting the house plaid? Letting the grass grow without ever cutting it? Parking YOUR car on YOUR front lawn? Good luck with that (without paying for some special permit that says yes you are allowed to do this with your own stuff).
 
2014-01-21 02:27:11 AM  
Patrick Smith's column "Ask the Pilot" was a pretty good read, I question his decent into douche-dom
 
2014-01-21 02:32:11 AM  

six-n-tombstone: Brainsick: You think that's bad? My asshole neighbor (who moved in AFTER I was already here) tore down a historic shed in his backyard. When I complained that now he could see me in the altogether, he called me a stoner and suggested I was stealing from other neighbors! What a douche...

Considering he is in jail for stealing, drugging and violating his parole; your trolling is invalid.


He drugged and violated his parole? Is that like date rape?

/It was a joke (and an old one at that), not a troll...though I am strangely pleased you were confused, so maybe...
tb.himg.baidu.com
 
2014-01-21 02:32:20 AM  

VIDEOWALLART: Patrick Smith's column "Ask the Pilot" was a pretty good read, I question his decent into douche-dom


Someone cut down his hipster neo-pagan spirit tree, removing all sense of balance from his articles.
 
2014-01-21 02:32:57 AM  

iheartscotch: Hey now! The Hundred Horse Chestnut holds the Guinness world record for greatest tree girth measured at 190 ft in 1780. Granted, Pando is likely the oldest organism in existence and the heaviest; but, did the Queen Aragon and her 100 guards take a smoke break under Pando? I think not!


Probably some virusses and creosote rings are older
 
2014-01-21 02:34:44 AM  

KidneyStone: I pay for it, I pay the property taxes, I pay for the upkeep....face it you whiny biatch, it's MINE and I can do whatever I want with the property.


firedaily.com
Easy there, killer.


/look up eminent domain sometime...
 
2014-01-21 02:34:54 AM  

bikkurikun: six-n-tombstone: bikkurikun: six-n-tombstone:

The D*bag in the article is a renter, if having no trees to look at offends him soooooo much then he can move out at the end of his lease and go live in the woods. He has no permanent residence there.

Define permanent. Especially in residential areas, houses get bought and sold all the time. My parents could never afford to buy a house, but lived in the same neighbourhood all their lives, and were active in the community.  I have owned property since I got out of college, yet I've sold, moved and bought new property 5 times since then and never cared much about become active and involved in the community I lived in.  Who is a more permanent resident and who is more invested in the community?

Unless you own an estate that has been in your family for generations, most property owners in residential areas don't live in the same house for more than 20 years.  So if there is a hundreds of years old tree on your property that makes the community as a whole a nicer place, you shouldn't have the right to cut it down just because you 'own' the property for a number of years.

In other words he does not  OWN the property he lives in. He does not pay property taxes on it, he has no investment in the neighborhood because it is easier for him to pack up and move, if he so chooses. Or his landlord can decide not to renew his lease and make him move. Just like your parents did not own the property they lived in, they too could be tossed out by the landlord, ergo not considered to have investment in the nearby community. The fact they were allowed to stay in their place for over 20 years only means they were on good terms with the landlord nothing more. I don't care how many properties you owned. Nor do I care if you think I shouldn't cut down a tree on my property, it is not your property; you don't get to make the decision. Don't like it tough.

Ah, no. You see, renters have rights here, you cant just toss them out. And most people ...


Renters have rights here too, but telling their neighbor what to do with their property isn't one of them. If they don't pay rent yes they can be tossed out. If they damage the property they are living in yes they can be tossed out. If they are in a lease and the landlord decides at the end of the lease they don't want to renew it, yes the renters can get tossed out. If it is a month to month the landlord can raise the rent til the renter can no longer afford it forcing them to move. So yes a renter can be tossed out.
 
2014-01-21 02:38:28 AM  

Brainsick: six-n-tombstone: Brainsick: You think that's bad? My asshole neighbor (who moved in AFTER I was already here) tore down a historic shed in his backyard. When I complained that now he could see me in the altogether, he called me a stoner and suggested I was stealing from other neighbors! What a douche...

Considering he is in jail for stealing, drugging and violating his parole; your trolling is invalid.

He drugged and violated his parole? Is that like date rape?

/It was a joke (and an old one at that), not a troll...though I am strangely pleased you were confused, so maybe...


He was finally caught stealing and doing drugs which is a violation of his parole. There happy Mctroll?
 
2014-01-21 02:40:10 AM  

Harry_Seldon: Portland...we do smug


Many towns in the Northwest are like that.  If part of your yard is under a land-use restriction due to wetlands, steep slope or erosion hazards, chances are that you're going to need permission from your local muni.

I had a steep slope in my back yard.  15' out from the top was protected.  To cut, I'd need a permit and an abortist's report on how I was going to replace it.  That's if they'd let me cut it in the first place.
 
2014-01-21 02:58:45 AM  

bikkurikun: six-n-tombstone: bikkurikun: six-n-tombstone:

The D*bag in the article is a renter, if having no trees to look at offends him soooooo much then he can move out at the end of his lease and go live in the woods. He has no permanent residence there.

Define permanent. Especially in residential areas, houses get bought and sold all the time. My parents could never afford to buy a house, but lived in the same neighbourhood all their lives, and were active in the community.  I have owned property since I got out of college, yet I've sold, moved and bought new property 5 times since then and never cared much about become active and involved in the community I lived in.  Who is a more permanent resident and who is more invested in the community?

Unless you own an estate that has been in your family for generations, most property owners in residential areas don't live in the same house for more than 20 years.  So if there is a hundreds of years old tree on your property that makes the community as a whole a nicer place, you shouldn't have the right to cut it down just because you 'own' the property for a number of years.

In other words he does not  OWN the property he lives in. He does not pay property taxes on it, he has no investment in the neighborhood because it is easier for him to pack up and move, if he so chooses. Or his landlord can decide not to renew his lease and make him move. Just like your parents did not own the property they lived in, they too could be tossed out by the landlord, ergo not considered to have investment in the nearby community. The fact they were allowed to stay in their place for over 20 years only means they were on good terms with the landlord nothing more. I don't care how many properties you owned. Nor do I care if you think I shouldn't cut down a tree on my property, it is not your property; you don't get to make the decision. Don't like it tough.

Ah, no. You see, renters have rights here, you cant just toss them out. And most people dont rent fron individual landlords, but rather cooperations that are set up with the specific pirpose of providing housing for the working class who cant afford ownership. Even jf you dont have money, you still have rights here.


...did you start having a stroke as you wrote that? Seriously. That's like, consider going to a doctor typing there. Your previous posts are very well put together comparatively.

/not a troll
//srlsy... please tell me you are typing one handed or exhausted or something at least
 
2014-01-21 03:21:05 AM  
My neighbour removed a jacaranda on his property that I could see out my kitchen window and obscured the back of a commercial property behind it. The purple flowers were beautiful and I was pissed and sad to see it go.
Know what I did?
I kept on living my life because it's not my damn business.
 
2014-01-21 03:37:11 AM  
Just an FYI to any morans still reading this thread:  You sound like total jackoffs when you start spouting that 'lib' nonsense.

Seriously, listen to yourself.
 
2014-01-21 03:55:36 AM  
Oh, you poor snowflake! Someone did something on their property to something that they owned and did not clear it with you! Omigosh, the inhumanity! I am so sorry that the birds won't be drawn to your bird feeder. Life is so unfair! You are such a gentle soul, and this just rips right at the heart of it all. I cried a little tear reading your touching blog, and wondered how you find the time to write such an eloquent post when your spare time should be spent policing the actions of your neighbors. Please, don't write anymore, and spend the rest of your days righting societies wrongs.
 
2014-01-21 03:56:47 AM  
Haters gonna hate...

wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net
 
2014-01-21 04:02:16 AM  
I feel for the guy but dammit, if you would rather see trees instead of ugly buildings move the f*ck out of the city.

And then plant your own!
 
2014-01-21 04:04:49 AM  
If you don't like it, go someplace where you can own air rights. Then when your neighbor downslope cuts one of his trees--or allows it to grow too tall, whichever the case may be--you may have some kind of right to complain. Otherwise, you have no right to a beautiful skyline.

These are the kind of people who, in a few more years, will be suing because the same beautiful tree is now termite-infested and dropping branches all over "their" roofs or dead leaves all over "their" yards, and whining because the neighbor won't cut it for the betterment of the entire neighborhood.
 
2014-01-21 04:43:16 AM  

Marlys: I have a very large cedar (200ft+) on the border between my neigbour's place and mine. He wanted to cut it down, offered to pay for it. It craps needles 365 days a year all over all our cars and driveways. I called the city to see who's tree it was. I was told that it is my tree, and I cannot cut it down, it's protected. The only way I could cut it down is if it were diseased. I like trees, so not a huge deal. It does make a ridiculous mess, I was surprised to find out that I couldn't do what I wanted on my own property though.


Too bad you can't get some copper sulphate in the plumbing section of the hardware store.
 
2014-01-21 04:50:17 AM  
As someone who's parents property value has tanked due to the clear cutting their "neighbor" did of the  entire old growth forest around their property, I'm getting a kick.

/looks like a farking nuclear bomb went off
//cried for all of the memories I had growing up running around the forest
 
2014-01-21 04:50:43 AM  

Harry_Seldon: Just be very careful...


Old man Peabody was a tree-hugging pioneer.
 
2014-01-21 04:53:47 AM  
Mr. Smith: When people living in some particular place have reason to feel that some particular type of tree should be protected, they pass these things called LAWS.
You see, that way, these decisions can be made collectively, and everybody gets a say - not just you. And then, when somebody goes to cut down a tree they shouldn't, you can do something legitimate about it, as opposed to simply blog whining.
When such laws have been made in a democratic manner, and everyone knows what is expected of them, and can plan accordingly, the vast majority of people are happy to comply - and then, you won't have anything to whine about.
In the absence of any such regulation, your neighbor's decision to cut down his tree is none of your business.
 
2014-01-21 05:04:31 AM  

Fafai: This is the best post. "Sure the bank technically owns the mortage, but I still pay for everything so you're dumb." You can't do just whatever with the property either. Removing trees, maybe. But planting trees? Building structures? Painting the house plaid? Letting the grass grow without ever cutting it? Parking YOUR car on YOUR front lawn? Good luck with that (without paying for some special permit that says yes you are allowed to do this with your own stuff).


Funny, other than the "building structures" bit, my parents can do all of that on their property that they own without having to ask permission.

They had to have an old alder taken down a few years ago, because it was horribly rotten and posing a threat to the house.  They inquired with the county; no permit needed.  So they found a good company and had it taken down.  It was neat to watch, and the wood fueled many a cozy fire in the fireplace.
 
2014-01-21 05:06:03 AM  

Brainsick: KidneyStone: I pay for it, I pay the property taxes, I pay for the upkeep....face it you whiny biatch, it's MINE and I can do whatever I want with the property.

[firedaily.com image 299x223]
Easy there, killer.


/look up eminent domain sometime...


Kelo V. New London. Yeah!
 
2014-01-21 05:32:02 AM  
Property:  The right and interest an individual has in land or chattels to the exclusion of others.  The right to enjoy and dispose of certain things, in the most absolute manner as the individual pleases, provided the individual makes no use of them prohibited by law.

Issues like this are much easier to resolve if you accept the premise that words mean things.
 
2014-01-21 05:46:44 AM  
Oh god, and he's just renting the place atop of that....wow...I don't think I've ever had a legitimate use for this phrase until right now:  "Check your farking privilege."
 
2014-01-21 05:51:28 AM  
One the one hand, this whining douchenozzle needs to go be a socialist somewhere else. On the other hand, there are plenty of other socialist twatwaffles who applaud HOA rules such as one forbidding RV parking in one's own driveway, or building 75-foot tall fluorescent pink sculptures in one's own yard. It's a catch-22.
 
2014-01-21 05:55:40 AM  
We have rules locally about the size of tree that you are just casually allowed too kill.  Yes it leads to peeps killing their trees just before they get to that size, but it at least acknowledges that at a certain point they become a local treasure and not just something to use for fuel or to remove because it is convenient.
 
2014-01-21 06:02:54 AM  

Langdon_777: We have rules locally about the size of tree that you are just casually allowed too kill.  Yes it leads to peeps killing their trees just before they get to that size, but it at least acknowledges that at a certain point they become a local treasure and not just something to use for fuel or to remove because it is convenient.


Why do people hate insurance companies?
 
2014-01-21 06:08:32 AM  

LordZorch: Seattle has a different view of trees: old ones, like the douchebag blogger loves, have a tendency to come crashing down in winter windstorms.

One of the first things people ask about is about old, dangerous trees in the neighborhood.

There are plenty of trees - cut one down, plant another one.  It's not like there is a shortage of them.


After reading that whiny blog I did  double check to make sure that he wasn't a Wallingford resident.
 
2014-01-21 06:08:32 AM  
This guy seems to be having some trouble distinguishing  the way life really is and what he thinks it should be. I've got three words for him: Grow up, Sparky.
 
Displayed 50 of 243 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report