Before we get to the ‘tree scam’ proposed by the city, first a little back and forth between the city councilors;
“It’s been embarrassing as a citizen to watch previous leadership,” Councilor Michelle Erpenbach said.
“Last year’s budget was totally ridiculous,” Councilor Jim Entenman said.
“Remember, Jim, there’s a couple people here who voted on that ridiculous budget,” Councilor Greg Jamison said.
Oh, but councilor Staggers was such a bad guy, you know, the boogey man of responsible spending, now all of sudden everyone is a fiscal conservative now that the bottom dropped out of the economy. Yet Erpenbach supports funding the Zoo, and Entenman supported raising sales taxes to build an Events Center. Sorry folks, can’t have it both ways. Either you support spending tax money on taxpayer needs, or you don’t.
The first cut the council discussed Tuesday was the elimination of the street tree removal program, which removes dead or diseased trees from rights-of-way.
The $60,000 program will be discontinued under the 2011 budget proposal.
So who does our mayor propose pay for this program? Kinda sounds like he wants to use the same unconstitutional city ordinance that forces people to trim city owned trees to force people to pay for the removal of the city owned trees. So I ask you again, Mike, who do you suppose pay for dead tree removal? The Feds? The County? Because it sure as Hell shouldn’t be property owners who don’t own the property.
Greg confuses me. Wasn’t he one of the people saying cut the budget now! I didn’t think he liked Munson’s budget- but now he wants to defend it!
So let the tree branches fall and pollute up the streets, then as people continue to drive over the branches hopefully the mush of the tree bark will fill in the pot holes thus making the streets safer to drive on and through. See…magically it all takes care of itself!!
“Because it sure as Hell shouldn’t be property owners who don’t own the property.”
Yes it should. Just as they should pay for their sidewalks and maintenance on those sidewalks if they crack or heave, pay for the gasoline it takes to mow the grass in the area between the sidewalk and street, and pay for the gas it takes to run a snowblower over that sidewalk in the winter.
When the city starts running around at night planting trees without the knowledge or permission of the homeowner then the homeowner might have a right to complain, but if you buy a house and plant a tree – or buy a house which already has trees on it – they are your responsibility… not mine (since taxpayer money comes out of my pocket too).
My elderly neighbor had a heart attack trying to level out his tree root heaved up sidewalk.
As a former public official said to me today;
“Huether is setting the city up for a law suit in the event one of these dead trees falls over during a wind storm and destroys somebody’s home.”
And he is right, Costner. Like I have told you in the past, the city carries liability on the right away, it is not our responsibility, as much as it gives you a boner to have it that way, it is not the case. The city HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL authority to force citizens to take care of their trees. And until you give me the legal proof, you can just STFU about it.
If you continue to write posts about it, I’ll continue to comment upon them. I’ve told you before it isn’t my duty to prove it is constitutional, it is your duty to explain how it it is unconstitutional… and I just don’t see how you have a valid argument.
The term “unconstitutional” gets tossed around quite often on this blog, and rarely is it even remotely close to the ballpark. Dan Daily’s case and the Red light camera case are two examples where it does come into play, but beyond that it is most often just someone tossing the term out because they think it somehow validates their argument – but I’m afraid it does not.
I would hope people understand the Constitution (whether it be state or federal) does not specifically spell out everything a city or government entity can or cannot do. It merely protects specific rights the citizens have. If there is a case where those rights are violated and the Constitution is violated, then yes someone can claim it is unconstitutional. However, not every law or ordinance or policy rolls up to the Constitution.
Do you honestly think tens of thousands of cities across America have been forcing homeowners to maintain city owned property for decades upon decades and you are the first person to ever suggest it might be unconstitutional? Get a grip – Sara Palin seems to have a better understanding of the Constitution than you do.
Costner. please argue fair!! To accuse someone of knowing less the Sarah Palin…..that is a foul, below the belt, dirty fighting.
Well in my defense I did misspell “Sarah”. But you have a valid point… I crossed a line with that one. My humble apologies.
You betcha!
Not to deter from the above argument but I have knowledge of the city spending 175,000 on a skating rink…ummm, I thought we were in a budget crises? So they’re going to take away a taxpayer benefit to save 60,000 but they want to benefit the 30 people that will actually benefit from a fkg skating rink?? Where is the logic in that? If I were poor I wouldn’t be taking a fucking vacation.