Expensive tree...

devin553344 said:

OK cause I got the general idea that it was their land and the easement gave the right for someone else to cross it or something:

Easement: "a right to cross or otherwise use someone else's land for a specified purpose."

In the title of the story it indicates that it was their property. Or did I miss something?

Yes they should be held accountable probably, but $600,000?

Maybe I should add the price of restalking the forest:

Tree Name Height Price
Live Oak - Seedling 16 - 18' $800
Live Oak - Seedling 18 - 20' $1,400
Live Oak - Seedling 20 - 22' $1,700
Live Oak - Seedling 22 - 24' $2,000

Click to expand...

So there are multiple types of easements. What an easement is essentially is a condition on land use. A person still owns the property, but the easement either grants another party some particular use of the property, or as in this case, restrict what the owner can do with the property. California has a form of easements called conservation easements which limits what they could do with that land, and the fine was the penalty for violating the easement. Essentially they made a deal and then broke it, and have to pay up to make right the damage they caused.
https://www.calandtrusts.org/conservation-basics/conservation-tools/conservation-easement/

devin553344 said:

OK cause I got the general idea that it was their land and the easement gave the right for someone else to cross it or something:

Easement: "a right to cross or otherwise use someone else's land for a specified purpose."

In the title of the story it indicates that it was their property. Or did I miss something?

Click to expand...

There are many types of easements... and folks know this when they buy property. If they didn't like the fact that this section of the property was untouchable being a conservation easement, they shouldn't have bought it in the first place. Granted, if this was misrepresented at the sale, and/or they had incompetent council, that's whole other ball game.

The $600K figure likely includes a ton of lawyer fees, as now its going to take a ton of man hours to unravel/recreate the easement to provide for restoration, minimize damage, and protect it for the long haul... so some future joker can't go and say hey, those owners back in 2019 did this and got a wrist slap, so I'm going to do the same in 2035 and get away with it.

The $600K is also partly punitive... to send a message to others with conservation easements that govt takes them seriously, and that they are not to be messed with.

Part of the $600K could be clawback of tax incentives they might have enjoyed over the years, especially if they property was held for decades.

devin553344 said:

OK cause I got the general idea that it was their land and the easement gave the right for someone else to cross it or something:

Easement: "a right to cross or otherwise use someone else's land for a specified purpose."

In the title of the story it indicates that it was their property. Or did I miss something?

Yes they should be held accountable probably, but $600,000?

Maybe I should add the price of restalking the forest:

Tree Name Height Price
Live Oak - Seedling 16 - 18' $800
Live Oak - Seedling 18 - 20' $1,400
Live Oak - Seedling 20 - 22' $1,700
Live Oak - Seedling 22 - 24' $2,000

Click to expand...

Did you read the article? They destroyed a portion of the forest building a road to get the tree, removed more than 3,000 cubic feet of soil, mowed down vegetation, and killed more than 2 dozen trees. So they made a road into a protected forest, took a tree, left a big, gaping hole, all so they could put the tree on their property.

I am aware of what a conservation easement is, I live in New Hampshire and lived on a property with two easements, one a mixed use easement, one a conservation easement. The mixed use easement was for a driveway that had to go through my neighbor’s property to get to my property and the other was a neighborhood conservation easement. The mixed use easement gave me permission to build and maintain a driveway, but the property belonged to my neighbors. I couldn’t do whatever I wanted on that stretch of property... It wasn’t mine. I was only allowed to build the driveway.

The conservation easement on my property meant that I had ownership of the property for property value purposes, but the rights of to the land belonged to a neighborhood trust and they were the ones who paid the taxes on the property. Everybody in the neighborhood had a portion of “their land” in this conservation easement so as to guarantee that neighborhood always had a natural, wild area. It’s like a homeowners association, but for nature, that ensures your neighborhood won’t be bought by a developer to slap in McMansions or otherwise completely change the layout of the neighborhood.

So it is “your land” in the sense that you bundle it with your property and it adds to the overall property value of both your home and your neighborhood, but the rights to the use of the land don’t belong to you. They belong to a trust who manages the land. They pay the taxes on the land and sometimes even “rent.”

Having land with a conservation easement around here is the bees knees because our property taxes are *insane* and you are basically getting a parcel of land for nothing. There is no way we could have afforded that house if it weren’t for the easement, and it made us a fortune when we sold it.

Breaking an easement is a big deal... Not only do you violate the agreement you have with the trust that maintains the land, it completely devalues the whole neighborhood. The whole point of having a conservation easement is to protect the area, but when you say “this area has a conservation easement, three acres of which was recently torn up and not restored,” you have devalued not just your property but everybody else who’s a part of that land trust. The point of easements is pristine land at a low cost, or even so it generates passive income for the property. This breaks that.

So 600k? Sorry, they got off light.

devin553344 said:

That's interesting to me. How can arrogance and disregard amount to more money.

Click to expand...

The law usually takes intent into account. Remorse or good intentions often are used to reduce penalties, and malice or arrogance are generally considered reasons to increase penalties.

devin553344 said:

Do Christians believe in suing others?

Click to expand...

Yes. Of course. We are obligated to resolve differences according to law.

devin553344 said:

Interesting, because I always had a forgive everyone attitude that I thought was from Christianity. I could be wrong I suppose.

Click to expand...

Forgiveness is not justice. You can assert your rights and still forgive the one who trespassed on them.

So Jesus approves of lawsuits?

O.K.

devin553344 said:

Matthew 5:40

And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.

I thought that was a teaching from Jesus.

Click to expand...

I think there is a difference between taking someone’s coat and killing a dozen trees to remove a 200 year old tree and messing up an ecosystem, all in violation of a covenant.