Project TRIM, something one of my friends coined ‘The Tree Tax’ is a failed experiment and should end. All of these people were fined and charged for not taking care of something the city owns and is on city owned property. Wanna talk about fascism? I encourage all the the citizens to not pay the fine. The city can’t sue you for not taking care of something they own and BY LAW are liable for. That’s right, the city is liable for the trees in the boulevard and carry insurance if one of the trees happens to damage snowplows, etc. They have no legal ground to stand on, and they know it. Don’t pay.
What burns by butt is the fact you can call the city and complain (numerous times) about a neighbor tree and NOTHING is done, until a branch falls off and causes $2500 damage to your vehicle. No they will not assume responsibity, but finally tell your neighbor to trim her tree, after they also send you a letter that you will be fined if you tree isn’t trimmed.
Rich.
What they should do is pay the fines in pennies.
That would be funny.
They really don’t have any legal standing to make people pay. How can you charge people $150 to have the city trim their own trees? I heard a rumor that they are going to change Project TRIM because so many people complained about it this last time around.
Dead horse – meet lewis. Lewis – meet dead horse.
Paying any fine is an admission of guilt. They con you into making yourself guilty. If you pay it, they cite you over and over and can collect stacking on the fines. Never (ever) pay any fine including traffic (ie. camera tickets) etc.. ‘Home Rule’ is applied for all city business, not just zoning. City code 2-66 prior to 2007 states ‘either party can appeal into circuit court’. It now reads ‘subject to judicial review’. You cannot appeal, nor can they by asking a court to make you pay. Ignore them, it’s just scare tactics.
Costner, hardly a dead horse. I advise you to tune into the council meeting Monday night, I have a feeling at least one of the 70 people who owe fines will be there, and it will be heated. The fact remains the same, how can a city charge it’s residents to maintain something the city owns and is liable, it’s unconstitutional, plain and simple.
You’re going to have to explain how it is unconstitutional, because frankly I think that is just a blanket phrase being tossed around and I’m not sure I see the obvious unconstitutionality here.
Hundreds – perhaps thousands of cities all across our nation do the exact same thing. Homeowners are responsible for boulevards and anything contained on them including trees, however the city retains ownership of the property for easement purposes in case they ever need to widen roads or permit utilities to be placed there.
Honestly this is not a unique situation. If you don’t want to maintain a tree in the boulevard then don’t buy a house with trees in the boulevard and don’t plan any new ones. I equate this to someone bitching about getting lung cancer because they have smoked for 30 years. Seems to me the entire argument is easily avoided if you just don’t make a decision that puts you into this situation.
It is unconstitutional because of ‘due process’ You have no way of fighting the fine in court, because the fines are civil judgments. You can’t wreck someone’s credit for not trimming a tree, a tree that isn’t even owned by the person. Kansas City and Brookings, SD have specific ordinances that say that citizens are not to touch city owned trees, makes sense since the cities are liable. That’s the bigger point here. If as a homeowner I was required by law to carry insurance on my front sidewalk and trees in my blvd, then I would agree it is my responsibility, but I don’t have to, the city does. You understand that right? It would be like making Tim Kant responsible for damage of a SculptureWalk statue that sits on public property in front of his bar. Well guess what, he is not, the city carries the liability and responsibility. How are the trees in the blvd any different? They are not. As for the lung cancer reference, not quite, I was never told by my lender or realtor that I was responsible for trimming trees in the blvd I found out two years later when I got a letter in the mail from the city.
Ok I understand what you are saying now. I thought you meant the fact the city requires you to maintain city owned property was unconstitutional, but in reality what you are saying is the fact you can be cited for not doing so, and there is no legitimate way to appeal that citation is what is unconstitutional.
Thanks for the clarification – and that said I’m not sure I disagree with you there.
However I know you have mentioned Kansas City and Brookings in the past, and at one point I went out and found several cities which are just like Sioux Falls – so it can go either way. That really isn’t the issue here however – it appears to be more about due process.
“I was never told by my lender or realtor that I was responsible for trimming trees in the blvd I found out two years later when I got a letter in the mail from the city.”
You know what they say about ignorance being an excuse right? I bet your realtor or lender probably never told you that you had a responsibility to remove snow from the sidewalk or keep your lawn mowed to 8″ or less either…. but it is still the law.
There is some other issues with liability. The KC forestry director told a friend of mine that is why they don’t allow citizens to trim the trees. Think about the legality of it. If I fall out of a city owned tree and break my arm while trimming it, can I sue the city for damages since they cover the liability insurance on the tree? When the trees damage snow plows owned by indy contractors, the city has to pay for the damages. How is my broken arm any different? I’m just posing the question.
I’d guess you have to ask a lawyer on that one. Sooner or later some Jimmy Redneck type is bound to cut off his leg when he climbs a tree with a running chainsaw… so maybe just wait until then and see how fast Scott Hoy shows up on his doorstep.
If the lawyers avoid it, I’d guess there is some legal clause protecting the city from such liability. But I have no idea either way. However if the city is liable for accidents caused by “city owned” trees, how are they not responsible for accidents on “city owned” sidewalks?
“accidents on “city owned†sidewalks?”
Actually, the city is liable on that, IF it is because of their mistake. Obviously, if they slip due to ice or rain, that is debatable, but if they trip on a huge crack, they are liable. That is why it is so ridiculous to charge property owners for repair and maintenance.
I’m not so sure you’re right on that. I’ve always heard the homeowner is the one who would be sued if someone tripped on a section of sidewalk that had heaved. The city can’t inspect every sidewalk each and every week, so the responsibility lies upon the homeowner.
I might be wrong, but it sure seems like if people could sue the city I would have heard about someone trying by now.
Plaintiff guy has been in a lawsuit with them for 3 years, and will probably go to the SD SC.
But that wasn’t about sidewalks. I thought his lawsuit was about a parking slab that he was fined for.
All I know is that damn lawsuit has taken about 30 months longer than it should have. There is no reason it should take three years to rule on a law unless the law is so blurry nobody understands it.
“unless the law is so blurry nobody understands it.”
It is, as I understand it from talking to Dan, is that not only can’t citizens challenge the ordinance, the city really can’t either. It is a double-edged sword. It took Dan just 3 years to get a judge to hear the case, that they keep postponing.