"Really, we need to send the strongest possible message that this is going to be dealt with in the most firm action possible," Mr Wrightson said.
Maybe they could start by not calling it "vandalism". Makes it sound like some drunkards smashed a few bottles against a tree or something. This must have been a criminal organization, planning and executing the destruction of a massive ecosystem and a public good, presumably with some benefit for them.
A max fine of $3000 -$6000 per tree! That's tiny. Tree law in the US is brutal. If you illegally cut down a tree you owe the amount it would cost to have a tree of that type and size replanted there (those didn't look like small trees). If the tree is too big to feasibly replant an equivalent one there then generally you owe $2000 per year that tree had been growing. So if you cut down someones 100 year old tree then you owe them $200,000. Although the exact numbers may be changed now because I haven't had to look it up in a while.
With something like this someone needs to be bankrupted over it. A couple million dollars to a big developer is nothing. With something like this they should literally have to pay to replace all of those trees with identical ones plus punitive fines. Also how did noone see who did it? That's a pretty big landscaping effort for nobody to have seen anything. They also had to have taken the trees somewhere. There's no way that nobody saw anything. No traffic cams saw trucks carting 300 trees out of the area?
things_america_did_right += 1
Diggin ourselves out of the negatives one tree law at a time.
My state has treble damages for timber theft. Three times the value of the tree.
Yup. There's a reason that "forensic arborist" is an actual job title. Trees are worth way more than most people think.
My dad was a groundskeeper at a smallish local college that is somewhat known for its fairly large and diverse collection of trees. Nothing really exotic, just a wide variety of fairly normal trees that grow well in our climate. At one point a big landscaping company convinced someone on the college admin team to switch pesticides to their newer "green" pesticide. Well they went and treated a bunch of trees with this new pesticide and it wound up killing quite a few of the trees (probably not more than 20-25). The college wound up being awarded several $million in damages. US tree law is no joke.
Unobstructed water views are the most highly prized, with some estimating they can add between 30 and 80 per cent to a property's value.
https://daphnesauvage.com/local-news/whats-the-value-of-a-sydney-harbour-view
Well worth the risk as even if the fine is paid in full they'll still make a profit.
Increase the fines... And build a 15m concrete wall as punishment.
More aesthetic answer... seize their house as "proceeds of crime", bulldoze it and make a public park in it's place.
I fully support this!
Yes, and have them replant both areas by hand. We'll maybe they could have a spade.
Median price in Lane Cove is $3,135,000 for houses.
that's why they should be shot instead of fined
I don't understand; why do this? If someone gains a "better" view, then isn't it blindingly obvious who cut them down?
That's probably not enough to hold up in court. They could be getting framed by a competitor builder. The trees might have been accidentally cut (eg a contractor misinterpreting the location). All sorts of things.
You don't accidentally chop down 300 trees in the middle of the night, let alone without a single person seeing or hearing a thing.
Sue them all and let God sort them out.
I don't know much about Aussie evidentiary standards but in murrican, that argument alone wouldn't get you beyond reasonable doubt
pisspoor fines.. just the cost of doing business. So their multi-million dollar property now has better multi million dollar views. House should be turned into rubble and converted into a park