Think those trees on your property are yours? Think again. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ARTelevision · 05-24-2003, 06:01 PM

I think I own the trees on my property, maybe I'm wrong?
...............
California man convicted for removing over 300 oak trees from his property

Associated Press, 5/24/2003

VENTURA, Calif. (AP) A man who bulldozed more than 300 oak trees on his property could face more than 3 years in jail after he was convicted on criminal charges.

William Kaddis, 58, could also face fines of nearly $100,000.
The oak trees, protected under a 1992 Ventura County law, were destroyed sometime before October 2001.

''This was the largest rape of land in the history of Ventura County, and if they think we wouldn't prosecute anyone who destroyed our environment, they're wrong,'' Deputy District Attorney Karen Wold said.

Kaddis' attorney Roger Diamond said he plans to appeal the decision unless he can reach an agreement with the Probation Department.
....................
OK.
Well, not OK, actually. Not with me anyway.

You might own your land, but you can't "rape" it.

I guess he should have made love to it instead.

krwlz · 05-24-2003, 06:09 PM

This is fucked up....it is HIS by fucking law! They should NOT be able to fuck wih him...

Miekle · 05-24-2003, 06:15 PM

I think it just depends on where you live, that or maby having to get permision to do so first. I know a couple houses down from mine that are having thier house bulldozed and trees chopped down also. Was quite humorus cause the people that cut the trees down acctualy got to drop them on the house instead of trying to miss it. Was interesting to watch since they had a rock chucking contest before hand and I got to join in.

gov135 · 05-24-2003, 06:16 PM

Please. You own a house, and the land. You have trees growing on it by the grace of whatever you pray to. I mean, you don't really OWN a stand of trees. We are not talking about the pretty dogwood you have standing out front of your house that you trim to look nice. This is a stand of 300 trees. This guy just killed a lot of animals, flushed out alot of others. I'm not an enviromentalist or anything like that, but common sense should have told this guy he shouldn't do it. We live with nature, we don't dominate it. That's why laws like this exist.

My question is why would he want to clear big, beautiful trees. Does he not like shade? Did he want to create more lawn to mow? This guy is obviously not a thinker though, so its hard to guess what he was thinking.

Mael · 05-24-2003, 06:17 PM

where i live you have to get permits to cut down most trees that may be on your lawn unless they are dead/diseased. and you're only allowed to cut down a few a year without other permits. why can i get fined by the city for not mowing my lawn (which they say makes it an eyesore) but then i can't cut down trees on my lawn without permission? i think it's dumb.

rogue49 · 05-24-2003, 06:22 PM

Also even if you OWN the land, you still have to abide by the laws in your area.

This is part of living in a nation, state, county & town.
Anyone should know, before you do ANYTHING to your property,
get all the regulations and forms out of the way.

You will be zapped, governments live for that shit.

gov135 · 05-24-2003, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mael
why can i get fined by the city for not mowing my lawn (which they say makes it an eyesore) but then i can't cut down trees on my lawn without permission? i think it's dumb.

Because, unfortunately, reasonable people like yourself fall prey to dummies like the guy in the article. You have to get a permit to take down an eyesore cause he's busy wacking an ecosystem. Laws like that are made to keep him in check, and everyone else is inconvienced.

A common thread on this board has been, "can you keep stupid, irresponsible people from reproducing?" Well, not yet. But we seem to have found a way to keep them from destroying land that will be around, thankfully, longer then themselves.

The_Dude · 05-24-2003, 06:30 PM

well, we do protect endangered species, but i really think the govt should've bought out the land if they wanted to save the trees

ARTelevision · 05-24-2003, 06:39 PM

Sure, I think you guys who are indicating it's a legal issue are right. Laws are laws.

It's just that my inclination is to wonder what ownership actually means. I guess it means more like "stewardship".

Thanks for thoughtful responses.

eribrav · 05-24-2003, 06:43 PM

There are ways to cut timber without trashing everything in the area. It doesn't sound like this was a logging operation......just some whack job bulldozing very valuable trees.

Flooey!

VirFighter · 05-24-2003, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
well, we do protect endangered species, but i really think the govt should've bought out the land if they wanted to save the trees

Exactly. It is his land and his trees. It might be against the law but it isn't right, IMHO. If the government wants to save the trees then they should buy the land from him. Otherwise I think this is bullshit.

LewisCouch · 05-24-2003, 07:49 PM

This guy cut down 300 oak trees? I didn't have any idea that many trees were left in Ventura County, let alone the acreage that would be necessary to support that many trees. Sounds like a developer who is willing to take the heat in order to get on with his project. The guy is morally bankrupt and soon to be fiscally as well.

I've got about twenty 100 ft+ fir trees in my backyard and if I cut those down, the neighbors would kill me; who cares what the county would do. They are my trees, however, I am merely the current owner; those trees will be here long after I am gone.

Land use laws are on the books for very good reasons.

MSD · 05-24-2003, 08:16 PM

I think it's kind of ridiculous that we can't have the right to do what we want with our own land, but I think it's wrong to go and cut down that many trees for personal reasons. People like this are why we need stupid laws.

Fly · 05-24-2003, 08:43 PM

i don't know but,i'm in the process of buying acreage at the moment and we checked out this place today on the mtn side and....anyways,there are 2 trees that stuck out to me and just don't work where they are, and if...i do get this piece of land i figure i'm gonna cut down these 2 shitty trees.

Period.

now i know i'm only talkin' 2 freakin' trees here.li'l different than 300.

but....what IS the difference betwween 2 and 300 right?like Rogue says....i guess you gotta check up on your shit first.

*i'm still gonna cut 'em down.*

Spacemaker · 05-25-2003, 02:08 AM

This guy deserves to be prosecuted. He is a prime example of the whack @$$ attitude of "this is my land, I'll do whatever I please."

Check yourself.

To paraphrase a Native American expression, you don't own the land, you are safeguarding it for your children and grandchildren. It is man's folly to think he is the master of the land. In hours man can destroy what took nature decades to create. Wow, I got this great new tractor/weedeater/chainsaw/herbicide/insectiside, let me see what I can kill/maim/poison/mutilate/defile with it! What a grand time! Disgusting if you ask me.

I just finished my fourth year in a five year Landscape Architecture program, so pardon me if I'm a bit opinionated on this. I could write much more, but I'm feeling a bit scattered ATM so I'll just let it ride.

Argh.

Nathan

BBtB · 05-25-2003, 11:38 AM

I personally think its stupid to think that every single fucking tree needs to be saved. I was recently kicked out of my home so people could devolp my land. There are atleast 300 trees that WILL be destroyed on my land. Its called devolpment. There are still thousands of trees in the surrounding area. Now don't get me wrong. I am not saying we should bulldoze every tree off the face of the earth. I am not for us causing our own extinction. Put I don't see the point in trying to save them all.

GoldenOuroboros · 05-25-2003, 02:42 PM

I agree with The_Dude here, if the government wants to keep it over here, they usually got to buy it. Your land is your land. We gotta have trees over here anyways.. other wise our land washes away...

Spacemaker · 05-25-2003, 09:44 PM

I'm not implying that we should save all the trees on earth. Plant species often become invasive, lacking biological competition in the region. So definately, some trees definately need to be removed. But to carelessly destroy habitat.... to what end?

Certainly, the government should (and does) protect areas. There are many bodies in existance that protect native habitats - your state Wildlife and Fisheries Department, the Army Core of Engineers, various private organizations. But it is not on these agencies alone to protect these things. Private citizens have responsibilities too (what a concept!), as does industry (again - shocking!).

GoldenOuroboros, I'm not sure what part of the country you're in, but here in Louisiana people relentlessly clearcut areas to develop ... crappy cookie-cutter houses, apartments and the like. Hooray. Just what we need. More suburbs. And this results in massive washout, an increase in runoff and a profusion of unnatural concrete drainage structures, in places where natural swales and creeks used to be. Sound familiar?

What is really needed is a change in the guard, a departure from money grubbing development strategies that don't give a rat's @$$ about the environment. And, I hate to say it, but the responsibility of the government (both federal and local) to enact local codes that prohibit these kinds of things.

Maybe I'm just idealistic because I'm young. But hell, when people sacrifice their ideals, look what happens.

I'm ranting again. Bleh.
Nathan

robbo59au · 05-25-2003, 11:08 PM

Quite a few years ago there was a case here where a developer bought a very valuable block of land in the inner city. At the time however, there was an old, very beautiful church on that very site. Now, the developer knew real well that the church was protected by a court order, but was trying to get it deleted (or whatever you do to those things).
Anyway, this started to take a long time, so one bright, sunny Sunday morning a demolition team went in and reduced half of that church to rubble; effectively fucking it over so it couldn't be rebuilt.
Yep, you guessed it, the developer had ordered in the big guns, but all concerned pleaded ignorance and blamed each other. In due course, the developer was prosecuted and is still in gaol I believe; ie he got what he deserved.
Draw the parallels yourself.........

darksparkles · 05-25-2003, 11:23 PM

300 trees? jesus christ.

BBtB · 05-26-2003, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spacemaker
I'm not implying that we should save all the trees on earth. Plant species often become invasive, lacking biological competition in the region. So definately, some trees definately need to be removed. But to carelessly destroy habitat.... to what end?

Of course your whole statement is based on the conclusion that he did carelessly destroy it all. Have you been to/seen the property in question? You have no idea how he handled the destroying of the trees. This is the same mindset that made me have to go to a national park about two years ago and deal with underbrush EVERYWHERE. For what point? It is a fire hazard and it looks UGLY. I am so tired of people you know grew up in the city (or the subarbs.. or anywhere within 10 miles of the city for that matter) trying to tell me how we are running out of earth. Yea drive from Tulsa to Dallas then try to say that.

05-24-2003, 06:01 PM	#1 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Think those trees on your property are yours? Think again. I think I own the trees on my property, maybe I'm wrong? ............... California man convicted for removing over 300 oak trees from his property Associated Press, 5/24/2003 VENTURA, Calif. (AP) A man who bulldozed more than 300 oak trees on his property could face more than 3 years in jail after he was convicted on criminal charges. William Kaddis, 58, could also face fines of nearly $100,000. The oak trees, protected under a 1992 Ventura County law, were destroyed sometime before October 2001. ''This was the largest rape of land in the history of Ventura County, and if they think we wouldn't prosecute anyone who destroyed our environment, they're wrong,'' Deputy District Attorney Karen Wold said. Kaddis' attorney Roger Diamond said he plans to appeal the decision unless he can reach an agreement with the Probation Department. .................... OK. Well, not OK, actually. Not with me anyway. You might own your land, but you can't "rape" it. I guess he should have made love to it instead. __________________ create evolution

05-24-2003, 06:30 PM	#8 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	well, we do protect endangered species, but i really think the govt should've bought out the land if they wanted to save the trees __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

05-24-2003, 06:39 PM	#9 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Sure, I think you guys who are indicating it's a legal issue are right. Laws are laws. It's just that my inclination is to wonder what ownership actually means. I guess it means more like "stewardship". Thanks for thoughtful responses. __________________ create evolution

05-24-2003, 07:49 PM	#12 (permalink)
LewisCouch Insane Location: Pacific NW	This guy cut down 300 oak trees? I didn't have any idea that many trees were left in Ventura County, let alone the acreage that would be necessary to support that many trees. Sounds like a developer who is willing to take the heat in order to get on with his project. The guy is morally bankrupt and soon to be fiscally as well. I've got about twenty 100 ft+ fir trees in my backyard and if I cut those down, the neighbors would kill me; who cares what the county would do. They are my trees, however, I am merely the current owner; those trees will be here long after I am gone. Land use laws are on the books for very good reasons. __________________ "The gift of liberty is like that of a horse, handsome, strong, and high-spirited. In some it arouses a wish to ride; in many others, on the contrary, it increases the desire to walk." -- Massimo d'Azeglio

05-24-2003, 08:43 PM	#14 (permalink)
Fly see the links to my music? Location: Beautiful British Columbia	i don't know but,i'm in the process of buying acreage at the moment and we checked out this place today on the mtn side and....anyways,there are 2 trees that stuck out to me and just don't work where they are, and if...i do get this piece of land i figure i'm gonna cut down these 2 shitty trees. Period. now i know i'm only talkin' 2 freakin' trees here.li'l different than 300. but....what IS the difference betwween 2 and 300 right?like Rogue says....i guess you gotta check up on your shit first. i'm still gonna cut 'em down. __________________ BASTARD SterlingStudios

05-24-2003, 06:09 PM	#2 (permalink)
krwlz Fledgling Dead Head Location: Clarkson U.	This is fucked up....it is HIS by fucking law! They should NOT be able to fuck wih him...

05-24-2003, 06:15 PM	#3 (permalink)
Miekle Insane Location: your front door...ding dong	I think it just depends on where you live, that or maby having to get permision to do so first. I know a couple houses down from mine that are having thier house bulldozed and trees chopped down also. Was quite humorus cause the people that cut the trees down acctualy got to drop them on the house instead of trying to miss it. Was interesting to watch since they had a rock chucking contest before hand and I got to join in.

05-24-2003, 06:16 PM	#4 (permalink)
gov135 Junkie Location: Midwest	Please. You own a house, and the land. You have trees growing on it by the grace of whatever you pray to. I mean, you don't really OWN a stand of trees. We are not talking about the pretty dogwood you have standing out front of your house that you trim to look nice. This is a stand of 300 trees. This guy just killed a lot of animals, flushed out alot of others. I'm not an enviromentalist or anything like that, but common sense should have told this guy he shouldn't do it. We live with nature, we don't dominate it. That's why laws like this exist. My question is why would he want to clear big, beautiful trees. Does he not like shade? Did he want to create more lawn to mow? This guy is obviously not a thinker though, so its hard to guess what he was thinking.

05-24-2003, 06:17 PM	#5 (permalink)
Mael Banned Location: The Hell I Created.	where i live you have to get permits to cut down most trees that may be on your lawn unless they are dead/diseased. and you're only allowed to cut down a few a year without other permits. why can i get fined by the city for not mowing my lawn (which they say makes it an eyesore) but then i can't cut down trees on my lawn without permission? i think it's dumb.

05-24-2003, 06:22 PM	#6 (permalink)
rogue49 Loser	Also even if you OWN the land, you still have to abide by the laws in your area. This is part of living in a nation, state, county & town. Anyone should know, before you do ANYTHING to your property, get all the regulations and forms out of the way. You will be zapped, governments live for that shit.

05-24-2003, 06:43 PM	#10 (permalink)
eribrav Junkie Location: upstate NY	There are ways to cut timber without trashing everything in the area. It doesn't sound like this was a logging operation......just some whack job bulldozing very valuable trees. Flooey!

05-24-2003, 08:16 PM	#13 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	I think it's kind of ridiculous that we can't have the right to do what we want with our own land, but I think it's wrong to go and cut down that many trees for personal reasons. People like this are why we need stupid laws.

05-25-2003, 02:08 AM	#15 (permalink)
Spacemaker Upright	This guy deserves to be prosecuted. He is a prime example of the whack @$$ attitude of "this is my land, I'll do whatever I please." Check yourself. To paraphrase a Native American expression, you don't own the land, you are safeguarding it for your children and grandchildren. It is man's folly to think he is the master of the land. In hours man can destroy what took nature decades to create. Wow, I got this great new tractor/weedeater/chainsaw/herbicide/insectiside, let me see what I can kill/maim/poison/mutilate/defile with it! What a grand time! Disgusting if you ask me. I just finished my fourth year in a five year Landscape Architecture program, so pardon me if I'm a bit opinionated on this. I could write much more, but I'm feeling a bit scattered ATM so I'll just let it ride. Argh. Nathan

05-25-2003, 11:38 AM	#16 (permalink)
BBtB ClerkMan! Location: Tulsa, Ok.	I personally think its stupid to think that every single fucking tree needs to be saved. I was recently kicked out of my home so people could devolp my land. There are atleast 300 trees that WILL be destroyed on my land. Its called devolpment. There are still thousands of trees in the surrounding area. Now don't get me wrong. I am not saying we should bulldoze every tree off the face of the earth. I am not for us causing our own extinction. Put I don't see the point in trying to save them all. __________________ Meridae'n once played "death" at a game of chess that lasted for over two years. He finally beat death in a best 34 out of 67 match. At that time he could ask for any one thing and he could wish for the hope of all mankind... he looked death right in the eye and said ... "I would like about three fiddy"

05-25-2003, 02:42 PM	#17 (permalink)
GoldenOuroboros The Cheshire Grin... Location: An Aussie Outback	I agree with The_Dude here, if the government wants to keep it over here, they usually got to buy it. Your land is your land. We gotta have trees over here anyways.. other wise our land washes away... __________________ Can you see me grin grin grrriiiiinnnning?!

05-25-2003, 09:44 PM	#18 (permalink)
Spacemaker Upright	I'm not implying that we should save all the trees on earth. Plant species often become invasive, lacking biological competition in the region. So definately, some trees definately need to be removed. But to carelessly destroy habitat.... to what end? Certainly, the government should (and does) protect areas. There are many bodies in existance that protect native habitats - your state Wildlife and Fisheries Department, the Army Core of Engineers, various private organizations. But it is not on these agencies alone to protect these things. Private citizens have responsibilities too (what a concept!), as does industry (again - shocking!). GoldenOuroboros, I'm not sure what part of the country you're in, but here in Louisiana people relentlessly clearcut areas to develop ... crappy cookie-cutter houses, apartments and the like. Hooray. Just what we need. More suburbs. And this results in massive washout, an increase in runoff and a profusion of unnatural concrete drainage structures, in places where natural swales and creeks used to be. Sound familiar? What is really needed is a change in the guard, a departure from money grubbing development strategies that don't give a rat's @$$ about the environment. And, I hate to say it, but the responsibility of the government (both federal and local) to enact local codes that prohibit these kinds of things. Maybe I'm just idealistic because I'm young. But hell, when people sacrifice their ideals, look what happens. I'm ranting again. Bleh. Nathan

05-25-2003, 11:08 PM	#19 (permalink)
robbo59au Upright Location: Brisbane, Australia	Quite a few years ago there was a case here where a developer bought a very valuable block of land in the inner city. At the time however, there was an old, very beautiful church on that very site. Now, the developer knew real well that the church was protected by a court order, but was trying to get it deleted (or whatever you do to those things). Anyway, this started to take a long time, so one bright, sunny Sunday morning a demolition team went in and reduced half of that church to rubble; effectively fucking it over so it couldn't be rebuilt. Yep, you guessed it, the developer had ordered in the big guns, but all concerned pleaded ignorance and blamed each other. In due course, the developer was prosecuted and is still in gaol I believe; ie he got what he deserved. Draw the parallels yourself......... __________________ 'These aren't the droids you're looking for'

05-25-2003, 11:23 PM	#20 (permalink)
darksparkles Insane Location: Seattle	300 trees? jesus christ. __________________ "I could be the walrus ... I'd still have to bum rides off people." -Ferris Bueller.