Not to be outdone by the tree hugging, formally Republican cities of Kirkland and Redmond, the Soviet of Seattle is planting its own tree protection ordinance. It would limit tree cutting on PRIVATE PROPERTY to three per year. Exceptions for hazardous trees and certain construction activity would be allowed if the PRIVATE PROPERTY owner can prove removal is necessary. Kudos to Councilmember Tim Burgess who said he doesn't think the city has "made the case yet that the city should intrude that far to private homeowners."
Could there be an ulterior motive behind this latest nanny city proposal, like say, money? The tree law will no doubt require permits and enforcement both of which will be new revenue streams into the bottomless pit called the city budget.
Posted by warrenpeterson at December 02, 2008 11:35 PM | Email ThisI have a large sequoia in my back yard. It could easily crush my house during windstorm 2009.
Any re-development of my property would require its removal, but I expect that goat-man Conlin would prevent me from obtaining a fair market price for this home that I fully own, but thanks to taxes, I will be buying it back from Conlin, Phillips, Sims et. al. until I die.
Should I be prevented from harvesting my tree for self protection, lumber value and real estate profit, I will seek to find some creative ways to sue the City of Seattle for my loss, and maybe file some kind of civil suit against Conlin.
Any lawyers out there who might advise me? I'll give you a nice redwood burl.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on December 3, 2008 01:45 AMAnd as far as the 500 species going extinct every day, or the 50 CUBIC MILES of ice melting in Greenland every year who cares. Future generations can go without all that diversity, and all them folks in Florida can just move somewhere when the seas rise....
Oh that's right. There is no global warming. All them glaciers, and that polar ice cap were all just imaginary.....
Bart. If the tree is a real hazard, you can cut it.
I say you should be able to cut all the trees you want, but pay into a fund to replant them elsewhere to offset your impact to our dying planet.
Where do we draw the line? A very important question. Just think of what future generations will think of "us" folks. Do humans have a purpose other than infecting our planet like a disease?
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on December 3, 2008 06:15 AMThis is a big-time boon for ARBORISTS...a mainly a bunch of tree-huggers.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on December 3, 2008 06:33 AMAnd your proof of a dying planet is where? It's time liberals get over themselves and quit thinking that in the grand scheme of time, that their measely existence will not even register a blip on the planetary screen. This planet was here long before you and will be here long after you so let's get past the hyperventilating hysterical words like "our dying planet", shall we?
If "global warming" signifies the end of the planet, perhaps one of the hyperventilators can explain how we've entered and exited out of 6 previous ice ages, and low and behold, the planet appeared to have survived.
We won't be happy till the USA looks like Somalia. Wahoooooo!
Right Cynical? Screw the next generation(s). They already get all our debt, and what is even better, every single baby born in our country has over 200 toxic chemicals attacking their DNA at birth! We are even polluting our species. Who needs healthy babies any way!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.kids.health/browse_thread/thread/8d01f13ce85989b5?pli=1
All them tree huggers, and liberals wanting healthy babies. Cancer is for everyone! Screw em right Cynical? Drill baby drill!!!!!
D-R-I-L-L
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on December 3, 2008 06:45 AMYou say I can cut my sequoia down if it is a hazard.
I wouldn't dream of doing so, unless you and Julia "Butterfly" Harris were somewhere up near the top.
Love,
Bart
"U.S. industries manufacture and import some 75,000 chemicals. The current regulatory system does not require comprehensive testing of chemicals before they are put into products and it does not provide authority to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prevent harmful chemicals from being used in products and released into the environment."
Written by "liberal" doctors.....
http://www.dea.org.au/node/123
And what cleans the toxins from our environment?
Trees....
Want some more? I doubt it.
"Our wombs are no place for poisons. Our babies have the right to be born toxic-free," said Laurie Valeriano, Policy Director of the Washington Toxics Coalition and mother of three.
http://www.watoxics.org/
I got a big jug of toxic slime here. Want a drink? Not to worry. You already drank 5 jugs, and you kids are lookin' kind funny..... But what the heck. Them companies filling my body with toxic chemicals have to meed their dividend, and quarterly expectations!
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on December 3, 2008 06:54 AMSince when were you concerned about the rights of the unborn child? You are afterall a Pro-bort for humans,right? So don't think of it as harvesting of trees, think of it as being a Pro-arbor-tionist choice made by the property owner that the tree exists upon.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 3, 2008 07:08 AMNo less than the director of the Sierra Club's Earth First Legal Defense Fund.
Bill Arthur.
He has prevented many property owners from harvesting their timber via the court actions relating to owls etc. All at taxpayer and landowner expense.
When it came time for him to harvest ten acres of old growth on his property along the Pend Oreille River he did not hesitate to do so.
Wonder of wonders his logging operation was met with NO resistance from the Sierra Club.
As he told me, "It was all completely legal."
And so it was, and so I support his actions.
But I spit on the man's hypocrisy.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on December 3, 2008 07:13 AMLate 70s and 80s were supposedly Republican times? It wasn't because of the tree ordinance. It more had to do with affluence and the availability of money that the Rs had. Today, the money belongs to the Ds as they represent big government and big corporations while the Republicans stand for the little guy.
Anyways, that is my current read.
Posted by: swatter on December 3, 2008 07:14 AMThey could have done the same thing with the plastic bag tax too. But once again, their solution is more government.
Posted by: Palouse on December 3, 2008 07:44 AMMost often, it is simply easier to "Sin" and ask for forgiveness later. The punishment may not ever come and if it does, it is likely less than the hassle of doing it the proper way in the first place.
P.S. This conservative probably has more tree's on his property than you. It will stay that way by choice, not by regulation.
Posted by: Boxxerace on December 3, 2008 07:51 AMBuddy, you need some help.
Tell you what swatter. Instead of spending money on shrinks, just listen to Thom Hartmann on AM1090 from 9 to 12 for one week. You will learn real fast just how much Republicans help the "little guy", and it won't be pretty. I know it will be hard for you to deal with all that truth / reality stuff. In the long run, it will do you some good to get out of your up is down bad is good slavery is freedom bubble.
By the way. Have your written that $50,000 dollar check to the IRS to pay for your family's share of the cost of the Iraq War yet? I am sure you thought "taking out Saddam" was the right thing to do right?
Hey Rick. How many of the 5,000,000 unwanted children we already have in America have you adopted? When I ask this, I am always prepared for someone like yourself to give me a number higher than zero. Some anti choice people actually do more than just attack pro choice people. They act according to their "faith" on occasion. It is rare, but it does happen. They are not pure hypocrite.
So how many?
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on December 3, 2008 08:15 AMClearly, if you OWNED any property, you'd be concerned about your ownership rights. As an avowed neo-comm, I'm sure that your shopping cart you keep with you at Nickles-and-Dimes-Us-to- Deathssville has only the bare necessities. No property for you!
And of course, since you've apparently drank the kool aid concerning our "dying planet," is their any possibility you could us all a favor... and get off?
There's been a tree ordinance of this type down here for many years. And it's everything that Bart, et al, say it is.
Never mind that there are tens of millions MORE trees in this country now then, say, 300 years ago. After all, back in the day, there wasn't much of an organized replanting program in the event of fires and logging and the like...
So, factless, again, put your smoking implements away before you hit the keyboard. Otherwise, you'd come across as just another leftist, burnt out, fringe whack job.
You know... kinda like you do with every post?
Posted by: hinton on December 3, 2008 08:21 AMSeattle Democrats tell me what I can do with my property, while Seattle Republicans mock me for supporting small government that wouldn't allow such things.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on December 3, 2008 08:45 AM"Our wombs are no place for poisons. Our babies have the right to be born toxic-free,"
As a pro-bort, when the situation suits you you call the unborn babies, yet when it comes to your pro-infanticide agenda, they're fetuses. Can you explain your hypocrisy on this issue?
The answer to your other question is zero personally, but other family members have taken in all totaled about 10 or so....and your number is what since you asked?
This is clearly one of the dumbest statements I've ever seem posted on this site.
300 years ago there was no commercial logging in Northwest, in fact most of Seattle-Metro area was likely covered with a dense forest (think thousands if not millions of more trees). You clearly don't have a clue about what your saying nor do you have any proof to back up your ridiculous claim.
Myths and Facts about U.S. Forests
MYTH:The early U.S. forest was a carpet of trees that extended from coast to coast.
FACT:The preColumbian forest of 1600 covered less than half of the present day United States.
MYTH:We only have 5% of the original ancient forests left that once covered the Pacific Northwest in the preEuropean settlement era.
FACT:This figure wrongly assumes that the coastal Northwest was covered with old trees before the arrival of settlers from the East. According to U.S. government studies, no more than a third of the region's forest was covered with oldgrowth trees at any time. Natural wildfires, and fires set by native Americans, routinely cleared vast swaths of old forests.
MYTH:Congress authorized salvage logging on federal lands of dead and dying timber that ignores environmental safeguards.
FACT:Salvage logging cannot proceed without an approved Environment Assessment as required under the National Environmental Policy Act and a Biological Evaluation as required under the Endangered Species Act. Moreover, a salvage sale can be stopped at any time by a district ranger up to the Secretary until the point that the sale is advertised.
MYTH:We're running out of trees.
FACT:We have more trees today than we had in 1970, on the first Earth Day even more than we had 70 years ago. In the middle of the last century, for example, Vermont, Massachusetts and Connecticut were about 35% forested; today they are 59%.
MYTH:We're cutting more than we're growing for future generations.
FACT:Forest growth has exceeded harvests since the 1940s.
MYTH:We're running out of old growth trees in our ancient forests.
FACT:In the U.S. today there are 13.2 million acres of old growth, i.e. large trees 200 years of age or older. The vast majority of these trees comprising an area the size of New Jersey and Massachusetts combined will remain in their natural condition and will never be harvested due to legal and regulatory prohibitions on logging, road building and even fire fighting.
MYTH:We're running out of wilderness.
FACT:The U.S. has permanently protected 104 million acres of land, much of it forested, in the Wilderness Preservation System. It's part of a larger total of 270 million acres that is off limits to all commercial activity, including logging, mining and grazing.
MYTH:Clear cutting, the practice of harvesting most trees in a given area, destroys the forest.
FACT:Clear cutting is a sound practice that benefits future forests. By mimicking natural wildfires, clear cutting is widely recognized by forest scientists and even by conservation groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund, American Forests, the Society of American Foresters as an ecologically sound technique for reforesting many softwood species. That's because, for their survival, conifer seedlings typically require direct sunlight and cannot survive in shade.
MYTH:A natural forest supports more ecological diversity than a managed forest.
FACT:Managed forests, even those with some clearcutting, often produce more biodiversity than completely natural forests, according to U.S. Forest Service studies in the Lake States and New England. Even tree farm plantations contain a rich mosaic of plant and animal life.
MYTH:Forest management harms fragile wetlands.
FACT:In fact, good forest management is the environmentally preferred land use for wetlands, as confirmed by the National Wetlands Policy Forum sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
MYTH:Forest management harms all wildlife.
FACT:Forest management can help wildlife. Forest management creates openings that stimulate the growth of food sources which is the prime reason why forest species such as elk, deer, turkey and antelope are far more plentiful today than earlier in the century. Sustainable Forestry guidelines promulgated by the American Forest & Paper Association require the promotion of habitat diversity and the conservation of plant and animal populations on members' forest land.
MYTH:More paper recycling will prevent the use of "virgin" wood from harvested trees.
FACT:Even if we could recycle 100% of our used paper, we would still need "virgin" fiber to replace wornout recycled fiber and meet the increasing demand for paper products. Recycling extends the use of virgin fiber, but it will not replace it. Even so, today well over half of all fiber used in paper products comes from recycled paper and from wood waste from sawmills. Recycled wood is another promising source of fiber.
Odd:
"The preColumbian forest of 1600 covered less than half of the present day United States."
How the hell would they know that? Were they here?
Lie:
"This figure wrongly assumes that the coastal Northwest was covered with old trees before the arrival of settlers from the East."
Umm, it clearly was covered with trees which is why the logging industry flourished in the Northwest. The term Skid Row was coined because that's the road the trees took to slide down to get to the waterfront. That term would not exist if there were no trees here.
One just has to look at old photos to see thousands of trees that don't exist anymore.
Lie:
"Natural wildfires, and fires set by native Americans, routinely cleared vast swaths of old forests."
I have no doubt natural wildfires destroyed trees, that's a fact of life, still that's a wild unfounded claim. Given that the Native Americans tribes around here we're hunter/gathers it would seem odd to suggest that would purposely destroy their main source of food. Remaining native tribes in Brazil don't burn their habitat's, why would Native American's here be different?
The source you list seems to be riddled with holes. I can just imagine what inconsistencies/lies one would find if I bothered to refute the whole copy/paste job.
Just because you are not genetically capable of admitting global warming is a reality, doesn't mean it is it is a "liberal" fantasy.
Rick. Good for your family. They don't appear to be hypocrites. I just don't want you "religion" telling my wife what she can do with her body. There are many things we can do to limit, or reduce abortions. The Republicon Party is opposed to practically every one of them.
Why is abortion so "rare" or "practically non-existant" in all them "socialist" countries with that darn "higher standard of living" for their citizens?
Jesus was so pro life that he spoke of abortion ZERO times, according to my bible.....
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on December 3, 2008 11:47 AMIndians set fires on a regular basis to remove brush and and small trees to improve hunting opportunities and to remove cover that could be used by enemies to sneak up on them. These fires were a form of fuel management and did not damage the over story of trees that were resistant to low intensity ground fires. Indians had a significant influence on forest ecosystems in the West.
Wildfires burned until weather conditions and lack of fuel extinguished them. For example, the Federation State Forest east of Enumclaw adjacent to the road to Crystal Mountain and Chinook Pass did not exist when government surveyors worked the area in the 19th Century. Their field notes reflect that the area was knee deep in ash from a recent massive fire.
The forests in the West today are entirely different than a 150 to 200 years ago. The Forest Service and BLM have manages to prevent wild fires and fights them to limit the damage. As a consequence the fuel loading from brush and under story trees is now many times greater than before fire prevention prescription was imposed.
Fire intensity and damage increases in proportion to the increased fuel loading. Fires are now so hot that soils become waterproofed. Massive erosion and earth wasting frequently occurs in the aftermath of modern forest fires. We have Smokey the Bear to thank for the current situation.
The only solution is active management to reduce fuel loads. However, idiots like you do everything possible to prevent management policies that are essential to protect forest watershed from cataclysmic and irreparable harm.
Posted by: Paddy on December 3, 2008 12:11 PMI tried 1090 but couldn't stay there because of the shrieking I kept hearing.
The Republicans are indeed for the working family more than the Democrats who love the rich and love illegals and others who don't pay their way in the system. I hope you don't me to explain further.
It is the Republicans who want fairness for the little working guy.
Posted by: swatter on December 3, 2008 12:14 PMYet you said that you "just don't want [my] "religion" telling [your] wife what she can do with her body."
Seems if you think babies have the "right" to be born toxic-free, that would be contingent on being born in the first place,right? So are 'babies' rights only extended to those whose Mother decides to carry that baby to term and extends his/her life? or are those rights inherent in human beings endowed by our creator which would trump the mother's ahem "choice". Sorry to go on an abortion rant on this thread, but it highlights the inconsistent messages given by liberals on a plethora of issues.
Clearly some cognitive dissonance going on there.
OMG, I can't stop laughing!!
(I would have emailed you on this correction, rather than posting it, but I don't have your email address.)
Posted by: Jim Miller on December 3, 2008 01:49 PMThe cost of the new types can cost as much as 30 to 60 bucks.
I guess uncle sam doesn't love the poor after all.
They use more of these than anyone else.
Anyway, back to those 20+ trees... I want reimbursement... plus labor costs. My time bills out at $175/hour. 3000 for trees + 20 hours labor. Where's my check for $6500?
If they want to fee/tax/permit/deny removing trees from private party they should belly up and pay when extra's are planted.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 3, 2008 02:38 PMRick, there is no confusion about my position. I want to make abortions legal, and as rare as possible. By giving the poor, that have almost all the abortions other options including "real" education, and contraception, help having and raising a child if they want to keep it, and JOBS!!!! Get that J-O-B-S. A future. An education. So they don't get pregnant till they are ready to be mothers.
swatter, I (and cato) are still laughing. If you really thing the GOP is trying to help regular Americans more than the haves, and the have mores as Bush puts it "his base", you are insane. Sorry to be the one(s) to tell you.
By the way. Good topic warrenperson.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on December 3, 2008 02:42 PMI think your talking nothing bull pure bull.
Your past statements have pretty much shown us that.
/You not a biz person
/Not even close to rich
/working 50 to 80 hours per week, yeah sure you are.
/own many properties. LOL
/And your pretty much a liar. God knows everytime you pipe up, we shut you down with REAL facts.
Not your made up stuff.
But please, keep it up sport.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on December 3, 2008 04:10 PMBy the way, I don't lie. I don't have to.
All Facts Support My Positions.
You should be thankful that I bring a little truth into your closed little worlds where Bush is a hero, and liberals are America's enemy.
I can only suggest you, Micheld, swatter, Ragnar, and the rest open your eyes, and take a look around. I went to Daytona Beach last year, and every other house it seemed had a for sale sign, or a for rent sign on it. Whole neighborhoods in cities in the midwest have been bulldozed. Flattened. Their cities are crumbling. Why? So the crooks on Wall Street can pad their portfolios with the suffering of millions upon millions of Americans. Hey anything for another cent a share.
Thank god we restrict development, or our area would be sucking eggs like most of the other major metropolitan areas. I did notice Real Estate in Seattle is down 10% since last year... Hopefully it won't get worse, especially since adults will once again be running our nation's government. Kramer, and Donny D seem to agree. So does Buffet. I know they are big "liberals".
I wouldn't be so hard on the "righties" if they hadn't done so much damage to my country.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on December 3, 2008 09:40 PMI'm probably getting the reputation as some kind of meanie here but I challenge trolls like "facts" and "cato" to at least give us some indication of what they do. I don't want their names or anything that might reveal their identity but I believe what we do is important when we are involved in a political discussion. "facts" and "cato" are elusive about who they are to say the least.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 6, 2008 09:54 AM