From the RGJ, Officials show tree cutters no tolerance:

Douglas Hoffman didn’t like trees blocking his view of the Las Vegas strip. Patricia Vincent was annoyed with some pines in her line of sight to scenic Lake Tahoe.

Both, prosecutors said, used a saw to solve their problem. Hoffman is serving a prison term of up to five years while Vincent, indicted in January by a federal grand jury, faces trial in April.

Both are part of a trend that has officials cracking down — with fines and prison terms — on people willing to cut trees to improve views from their homes or business, often boosting property values as a result.

[…]

On Jan. 25, Vincent pleaded not guilty in U.S. District Court in Reno to charges she hired a company to cut down three old-growth trees, estimated at up to 100 years old, on U.S. Forest Service land to improve her view, said Natalie Collins, spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Nevada.

Vincent faces up to 20 years in prison and a $500,000 fine if convicted, with trial set for April 29.

Vincent’s lawyer, Scott Freeman, called it “highly unusual” for a case like his client’s to be criminally prosecuted.

On the one hand, I can understand fines and jail time for damaging other people’s property, which some of these trees probably are. On the other hand, I do find it amazing that it’s possible to rack up $500,000 in fines for hiring someone to cut down some trees. I mean, the contractor she hired isn’t legally responsible for accepting the job? The trees are worth $500,000? Where does this number even come from?

The quote that really puts this into perspective, though, is here:

At Tahoe, some have been highly critical of government’s go-tough policies when it comes to cutting trees.

One was Melvin Laub, a Northern Nevada lawyer sued by TRPA in 2002 after he and a neighbor trimmed some pines to improve views, agency officials said.

Laub ultimately settled the case for $7,000 in an arrangement in which he did not admit liability. But before doing so, Laub attacked an agency he said “picked on me” because of his high profile.

Laub also attacked a regulatory approach he described as unnecessarily heavy-handed.

“It’s an offensive thing,” he said at the time. “All I’ve done is trim three small trees.”

Environmentalists counter that land-use regulators at the lake must be aggressive when it comes to anyone harming trees to better their view.

That’s particularly true at a time when some tree-cutting regulations are being relaxed to decrease fire danger around the lake, said Rochelle Nason, executive director of the League to Save Lake Tahoe. One practice is supportable, the other is not, she said.

“What we very much oppose is the removal of healthy trees solely for the purpose of opening up view corridors for homes,” Nason said.

When that occurs, Nason said, the rustic beauty of Tahoe that so many people enjoy is put at risk.

“The whole feel of the area changes,” Nason said. “People come to Tahoe to get away from urbanized areas. They don’t want that scenic beauty lost.”

It’s like the ultimate homeowners association run amok. I shudder to imagine what would happen if somebody painted their house one of the non-approved colors…

(Look, I’d be more sarcastic about this, but I just learned that the cappuccino I got from the gas station is nothing more than flavored water - there was no coffee in there. I’m barely seeing color at this point.)

Trackback URI | Comments RSS