Heritage Tree Ordinance Part 3

Some residents say we do not need any ordinance, that there is no problem with clear cutting property. Even lawyers suddenly do not remember definitions of words like unwarranted when facing the complexity of a simple ordinance.

I would ask this: Do you live next to a clear cut lot that was built out and now, as a direct result, have water problems? I have talked directly to residents who do now have water problems, and they do live next to, or near, property that has been clear cut and built out. It is not a coincidence: it is a direct connection.

Since it did not happen to me, there is no problem, and no need for a solution, is a novel, but not new, way to look at things.

Trees are irrefutably linked to reduction of flooding. To think otherwise is to deny the suns’ rise in the east. The village is asking taxpayers to shell out $340 million to fix all the past water flooding problems caused by innocent ignorance and willful irresponsibility. To then not try and minimize future problems in even the smallest way is fiscally and socially irresponsible.

3 Responses to “Heritage Tree Ordinance Part 3”

  1. Realist Says:

    Your tree hugging is so misdirected it’s laughable. How can you build a house if you can’t take out some trees?

  2. Red Fred Says:

    I didn’t care, I read these three pieces. Now I care. Thank you.

  3. Senior Grover Says:

    These are pretty good articles. Keep it up. I’m telling my friends to stop by and read what you say.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: