Tree Chopping
May 31st, 2006 at 8:17 am by David FarrarOkay I don’t subscribe to the notion that you have an inviolable right to do whatever you want on your property. I’m comfortable with not being able to build a 100 foot high fence as it may block your neighbour’s views. I’m also comfortable that if you have an ancient native tree – you know 200 years old or so, that it may have heritage protection.
But prosecuting Alice Presley because she cut down an exotic tree on her own property seems like bureaucracy gone mad. Especially that said tree had been causing problems with the power lines.
But the problem is Auckland City Council have passed a bylaw that basically says any tree over eight metres tall belongs to them, and you need their permission to cut it down. Ridiculous.
May 31st, 2006 at 8:31 am
Indeed, the pendulum seems to have swung too far from property rights.
As an aside I am all for trees and bushes (especially native) but people do seem to plant them in stupid places taking no account for the fact that the buggers grow.
The moral of the story is that if you have a tree on your property and it reaches 7.5m high cut it down while you can.
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 8:40 am
Obviously, Council doesn’t want large trees in Auckland.
They want pebbles and shrubs in all new developments and that is what they are getting.
IN particular they don’t want any more native trees because they belong to council when they are only 6 metres tall.
Exotics can grow to 8 metres tall.
But you are obviously meant to stick with rocks and shrubs.
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 8:50 am
David,
The Libertarian position is that you have an inviolable right to do whatever you want – period – provided you’re not infringing on the rights of others.
So you can cut down a tree on your property, provided you don’t harm anyone else while doing so (e.g. dropping it on your neighbours house).
But you couldn’t build a 100 foot high fence, as your neighbours would most likely be able to prove material harm as a result of that.
Any move to dilute property rights will leave us in exactly the situation we’re in: where bureaucrats, not landowners, own their land and chattels.
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 8:59 am
What Duncan said…Covernants freely entered into would also fix a lot of the problems of neighbours and their antics in your eyeline…people can sort this stuff out without pollies needing to blunder in all the time.
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 9:29 am
Ever looked down on a New Zealand city from any sort of elevation. You can hardly see the houses for the damn trees. I think this is another case of a succssful New Zealander being penalised because they are wealthy.
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 9:34 am
DPF:
1. You believe that property and person can be validly subjected to the will of the majority.
2. You call the tree situation “bureaucracy gone mad” and “ridiculous”. Unfortunately that’s a minority viewpoint. Aucklanders voted this council and this government into power.
What has happened here is inevitable. This time around you have found yourself within the minority.
If *you* get to steal Telecom’s property so you can have faster internet access, you’ll also have to put up with other people stealing your trees.
Put up with it. Don’t hail theft from Telecom in one instance and ridicule theft from tree owners in another.
You have two choices if you are to side with reason:
1. Stop complaining or
2. Reject your premise that property and person can be validly subjected to the will of the majority.
But I don’t expect you to take either of the rational options. I would expect you to continue complaining on the grounds that “but what *we* want to steal is for the good of everyone, what *they* want to steal is not”
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 9:41 am
Prune the tree till it is 7 metres tall then a month late cut the bastard down as it is not tall enough. Dump all the green waste on the council’s front door. I feel sorry for the people living in city they sure put up with a heap of shit, they have to fight back or it will only get worse.
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 9:50 am
DPF, I’m with you. My parents are constantly rueing planting a poplar tree on their fenceline when they first moved to their property. Now, 25 years later it’s 20m high and 3m round. It knocked the fence over, and constantly sends roots up everywhere, cracking drains, paths, etc. Their entire back lawn is in constant shade after midday from it. They are not allowed to cut it down.
This problem is going to get constantly worse, as there is one up the hill in a nearby park that is about twice the age, it’s more than twice the height and thickness. Being a relatively soft wood the tree has shed enormous branches during high winds or lightning strikes. Great.
If permission were easier to get it wouldn’t be such a problem. Apparently they have permission to remove the top third. I suggested to Dad he get rid of it one third at a time, until it’s under 6m, then dispose of it altogether. Makes it an expensive exercise though.
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 10:03 am
Unfortunatly the rule also applies to the diameter of the trunk – so you cannot always avoid it through perpetual pruning or “top lopping”
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 10:06 am
Thank you Willie for that wee rant. Yes I understand that you regard any deviation from the holy writ, means that you believe all infringements are equally bad.
Well sorry I don’t regard property rights as canon law, unable to ever ever ever be infringed. I think one can have a sensible debate about when it is legitimate to infringe on property rights without hysterically claiming all infringements are equally valid or invalid.
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 10:19 am
The rule also applies to the diameter of the trunk so pruning the top off (on a perpetual or one off basis) frequently still won’t get you around the problem.
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 10:43 am
But, hasn’t this been the case for ages? (exotics>8m, native>6m are protected). I have the feeling that, if anything, the rules have been relaxed in the last few years, as I remember about 10 years ago having to get all sorts of paperwork done and pay an effing fortune to some arborist to trim a few branches off a large tree in my yard and stop it destroying my roof and gutters, but when the job needed doing again a few years ago I was allowed to do it myself, up to a certain limit of foliage removed.
Reminds me, I need to get the chainsaw out again
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 10:45 am
iig374, yeah, bumout, huh? Also pruning tends to encourage growth!
There’s plenty of illegal methods, but it’s pretty stupid that people have to resort to that. I’m sure they’ll get caught out most of the time too.
I’m all in favour of big trees in public places. But on private property there has to be some limit. I recall that there was a gigantic pine tree across the road from my folks, fully 200ft high and spreading its branches over about a quarter acre of land and casting shadows for hundreds of metres. Why that tree has the right to eat someone’s land completely, to encroach on their house, their sunlight, their views and their safety, not to mention that of the neighbors, is beyond me. In a park, sure, it would be a landmark heritage tree. But on private property it’s just a nuisance.
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 11:02 am
DPF:
In my comment above, the case I put forward against the “will of the majority” highlighted the inconsistency of your views on property rights.
I made my case using reason, and did not resort to using fallacies (you’re too smart to fall for them) or patronising language (they degrade a good case).
Your response, on the other hand contained in summary:
1. The following patronising language:
“wee”, “rant”, “holy writ”, “canon law”, “hysterically”
2. A statement:
“I think one can have a sensible debate about when it is legitimate to infringe on property rights without hysterically claiming all infringements are equally valid or invalid.”
This does not address my point that: once you believe that valid infringments can be made by the majority, you will have a hard time justifying complaining about *any* majority infringment without looking completely illogical because your argument is founded on false premises. Therefore, you should stop complaining.
I think the quality of your response is apparent in your language and the lack of any case against my argument.
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 11:13 am
I’m for protecting trees in principle…
If the damn thing is becoming a hazard though, whether it’s a native or exotic, then there ought to be some sensible way to get permission to rectify it.
I do think too, that the current rules in Auckland (it differs region to region?) encourage people to cut their trees down before they reach the magic height. Which would seem counter to the intention surely?
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 11:20 am
Is it possible that in this situation the owner goes away for a short holiday and the “housesitter” unbeknownist to the owner, of course, cuts down the tree while the owner is away? Surely the owner couldn’t be prosecuted under such circumstances.
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 11:31 am
> Well sorry I don’t regard property rights as
> canon law, unable to ever ever ever be
> infringed.
Then your use of the term ‘right’ is incorrect; I think the word you’re looking for is “privilege”.
If property ownership is not a right*, then on what grounds can you defend your opposition to the RMA-tree-felling insanity that you so rightly complain about in your original post?
You said:
“But the problem is Auckland City Council have passed a bylaw that basically says any tree over eight metres tall belongs to them, and you need their permission to cut it down. Ridiculous.”
WHY? You claim that property ownership is not a right, so why is it ridiculous that the majority voted to curtail it?
Furthermore, It bothers me that you harp on about building 100 foot tall walls, as though that would be permitted in a common law framework that recognised the right to private property.
Either you don’t understand the Libertarian position, or you are intentionally misrepresenting it here.
* Subject, as is any right, to one constraint: that you not violate the rights of others while exercising your own.
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Peter Cresswell addresses the issue of property rights – specifically quoting the 100 foot fence example, and describing DPF as someone “who should know beter” – here.
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Willie – your entire argument comes down to that having a belief that property and person can be validly subjected to the will of the majority, invalidates your right to complain when you don’t like the rules.
You then tell me to put up with it, and stop complaining. You also imply I am irrational saying I will not choose a rational option.
Put another way, you say that because I accept Parliament has a right to pass laws, I don’t have any right to complain about those laws.
This is why trying to have a debate with you is worthless. You write off 99.99% of NZers as people who have no right to complain and try to improve the laws and policies which govern us.
I accept that living in country with laws, means I won’t like some of those laws. But my solution is to try and get the laws I don’t like changed, not just to sulk about the fact that we live in a country where laws can be passed.
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 3:02 pm
I can speak from actual experience, people do deliberately cut down trees before (or a little after) they reach the prescribed heights. Especially natives, get them out quickly. Another thing, if a tree is a metre or two over, chop it down and dispose of the evidence. I know of a tree well over the height but with no evidence the council decided not to attempt to prove the height in the face of vehement avowals that the height was below the limit.
My personal opinion is that apart from a few “special trees” where compensation can be negotiated, make it open season. Trees grow so well and quickly, and Auckland is not exactly short of them, so why bother. You will notice one thing, the neighbours who complain and want trees retained will almost NEVER be amenable to contributing to the costs of retention. The sort who are happy to enjoy the benefits that others have to pay for.
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 3:15 pm
David,
You are attacking a strawman representation of Willie’s argument, and ignoring mine entirely.
Nothing is wrong with fighting against individual crap laws like the RMA. Hell, I attended the ‘restorative justice’ meeting for Mr. Shaw and argued against any penalty being applied.
*However* … if you don’t *also* fight for property rights to be recognised as such, under a common law framework, you will be *forever* fighting against individual crap laws, because you’re not attacking the legal & philosophical foundations upon which such laws are based.
Furthermore, your refusal to acknowledge private property ownership as a right leaves you without a principled argument against abuses such as the one you’re complaining about in this case.
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 3:18 pm
“I accept that living in country with laws, means I won’t like some of those laws. But my solution is to try and get the laws I don’t like changed, not just to sulk about the fact that we live in a country where laws can be passed”
Bravo – great stuff. In terms of libertarianism, you’re either one of them, or some sort of degenerate.
Since there’s no Libertopia, they never have to admit being in error as to what will happen under their proposed regime. That’s a great debating advantage.
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 4:39 pm
The trouble is Duncan is you define a right in an absolutist sense.
I might say thet property rights are vitally important and should only ever be over-riden in very rare cases of national importance.
You will then say that makes it a privilege not a right.
Now the reality is in a parliamentary democracy, there are no absoluate rights. We like to say we have a right to free speech, but there are limits on that. We like to say we have a right to life but until the 1980s we had the dealth penalty.
So we get a circular argument where because I won’t make propery rights more invulnerable than the right to life or speech, then it is not a right.
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 4:51 pm
Yes. I spent many years in the libertarian ‘circle’, and can confirm libertarian logic bears very little resemblance to standard deductive thought – which is why it’s so debilitating to people.
They can never admit even ~one~ instance of government intervention doing good overall for society as opposed to the effects of the market. This isn’t a matter of preference~ it’s absolutely crucial to the function of the ideology~.
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 5:14 pm
Here’s a question for Willie – if someone breaches the property rights of another person, should they be required to pay compensation?
For example, if someone has been entrusted with the use of computer equipment and/or furniture which then goes missing on their watch, should they be responsible for paying the owner back?
Or does the trustee of the goods who lost them simply say “it’s not my problem”?
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 6:17 pm
This is the reason why I was over at the neighbours place a while back, helping him do a preemptive strike on his backyard, so there was no danger that the house alterations he had planned would be affected. There were some nice trees – but all gone now.
Vote:Geoff
May 31st, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Alice Presley is obviously stupid. Everyone knows the way to get rid of a tree you don’t want is to sneak out in the middle of the night and poison it.
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Good grief. “Rights” are ‘nonsense on stilts’. What they are is a convenient fiction that enables us to order our societies. As it turns out, most of the time things work quite well if we act as though “rights” really do exist. And some “rights” are so damned useful to us that we really ought to be deeply worried, and indeed outraged if they are violated. The most obvious one in this category is a “right” to freedom of speech.
But property “rights”? They are not inviolable. We have a serious interest in reining in some property “rights”, just as DPF said. Instead of beating our chests and stamping and shouting about rights, we need to have a discussion about exactly how far it is useful to work with the fiction of property “rights”.
I’m quite happy to run with the idea of property “rights” when it comes to fast moving consumer goods, but it’s a bit different when we are talking about, for example, land. That’s when it might be more useful to start using the language of “stewardship”.
So what could be said about the liquidamber in Auckland, without using “rights” talk. Perhaps on one hand people liked looking at it, it provided needed shade, and it enhanced the street as a whole. On the other hand, the costs were being on visited on one person, and those costs might have far outweighed the amenity value to the community as a whole. On the third hand, if we want to maintain the rule of law, then we ought to be at least somewhat worried when someone blatently flouts it, but contra that, perhaps the law is an ass. Maybe chopping the tree down was a valuable act of civil disobedience.
When it comes to Telecom, its exercise of its property “rights” was creating a serious problem for the community. On balance, better to violate the fiction of property “rights”.
That’s how you can reconcile applauding chopping down an exotic tree, and unbundling the local loop.
Vote:June 1st, 2006 at 8:30 am
A few facts.
Vote:Blanket tree protection rules are quite new and mainly found in large cities where zealots who have never put a spade in the ground are in charge.
I moved to Northland because we have no blanket tree protection rules and I wanted to plant scores of thousands of trees and have done so. Could never have developed my park in Auckland or Waitakere because they don ‘t allow me to manage my trees.
Some twit tried to introduce rules to protect pohutukawa on private land and the rule was proposed. I phoned council to tellthem I had ordered two hundred pohutukawa for a driveway and had now cancelled the order in favour of lemonwoods.
The chairman of the Northland Regional Council went out and cut down a pohutukawa on his front lawn.
They withdrew the rule.
June 1st, 2006 at 8:38 am
DFR….Im going to break into your place of residence and steal your stuff.As you have no rights to your stuff by your own warped reasoning I expect not a peep out of you in protest…
Vote:June 1st, 2006 at 8:45 am
this issue affects me as well. We have a huge Norfolk Pine on our property that affects light, drops shit all over the car and house and makes two rooms nearest quite damp from the lack of sunlight. The tree is approx 30m tall according to the arborist who gave me a quote for getting rid of it. I live in a street that is full of ‘listed’ trees so can see problems ahead getting rid of this monstrosity.
Vote:June 1st, 2006 at 9:24 am
Actually, there is no problem. Council said I can chainsaw away. I suggest all you people move out of Auckland to somewhere less tree-huggy.
Vote:June 1st, 2006 at 9:29 am
James – there are laws, if not rights but anyway if there are no rights, then that includes me shooting you when you burgle me
Vote:June 1st, 2006 at 9:42 am
DFR’s views are only “warped reasoning” if you assume a rights-based ethical system – there are alternatives. Personally, I’m a consequentialist, and I also find rights to be at best an unnecessary abstraction.
Vote:June 1st, 2006 at 10:18 am
Wow, Brian, I hope you have a woodburner!
We’ve got Norfolk pines on either side of us – a few sections away, but I look at ‘em & conservatively estimate that in the event of a really big storm uprooting either, either could take out 2-3 houses including us.
Who’d plant giants like that in a suburban garden?
good firewood though.
Vote:June 1st, 2006 at 10:26 am
I’m puzzled by all of this. NZ is a democratic country isn’t it? The people who implement this legislation are elected by you (all those writing above who are voters) aren’t they?? What the hell are you complaining about? You elected the politicians who are responsible for this state of affairs. Nobody is holding a gun at your head. Once again.. YOU ELECTED AND SUPPORTED THE POLITICIANS WHO BROUGHT THESE LAWS IN. I’ve lived in non democratic countries where citizens have more individual freedoms than here. What kind of country votes itself into slavery whilst whining piteously about it the whole time?? Good grief.
Vote:June 1st, 2006 at 10:35 am
“YOU ELECTED AND SUPPORTED THE POLITICIANS WHO BROUGHT THESE LAWS IN.”
Given we’re talking about Auckland councils, and based on what I’ve observed on this site, I suspect very few people here voted for the politicians who brought these laws in.
Vote:June 1st, 2006 at 11:11 am
Except that similar laws exist in many other parts of the country. NZers it seems are government/regulation junkies.
Vote:June 1st, 2006 at 12:34 pm
RedBaiter – scarily I agree with you on this one. I cannot believe how easily people in this country are willing to give up their rights, property and values.
And unfortunatly we don’t yet seem to have worked out how to get enough apathetic asses of their seats to make a real uproar about it.
Instead we bleat as we are led to the slaughter house.
Vote:September 12th, 2006 at 1:50 am
Thait is bull-the tree was on her property, so it is rightfully hers right? Trees over 8.0 centimeters belong to the city? that is gayer than the war on terror!
Vote:October 4th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
The rules are there to protect the trees. I’m no tree hugger but they do need some form of protection don’t they? Or we will end up in a land without nature.
Instead of disallowing the removal of trees from your own property, what if they said to cut it down you must first plant a new one, on your property or somewhere else. Then there’d still be a tree somewhere?
Just an idea (o:
Vote:October 4th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
The rules are there to protect the trees. I’m no tree hugger but they do need some form of protection don’t they? Or we will end up in a land without nature.
Instead of disallowing the removal of trees from your own property, what if they said to cut it down you must first plant a new one, on your property or somewhere else. Then there’d still be a tree somewhere?
Just an idea (o:
Vote:January 23rd, 2007 at 9:06 am
ringbark the bugger… then when it’s good and dead, call the councill and complain about this dead tree in your backyard, since they own it come and cut it out
Vote:June 12th, 2007 at 4:54 am
dhzm zgyoeid qcndyxklr puoitz alpvdsc zpfvibk skmyt
Vote:June 12th, 2007 at 4:55 am
dhzm zgyoeid qcndyxklr puoitz alpvdsc zpfvibk skmyt
Vote:June 12th, 2007 at 4:57 am
dhzm zgyoeid qcndyxklr puoitz alpvdsc zpfvibk skmyt
Vote: