Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Extras | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Family protests DOT plan to cut down tree

October 6, 2013

Residents of an Arkwright family homestead are up in arms about the Department of Transportation’s efforts to remove a cottonwood tree from their property....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(26)

Camarogirl

Oct-06-13 6:01 AM

Instead of cutting the tree down because it "Is a Safety Hazard " Why don't DOT put up a guard rail like on the other side of the road ? Win win if you ask me

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

changeyeaa

Oct-06-13 6:23 AM

I believe that other solutions are possible instead of destroying the tree. HOWEVER "the department attempted to cut the tree down three years ago, causing severe stress to her ailing mother" seems a little bit dramatic.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Steiner

Oct-06-13 8:39 AM

Do you believe this ? all this fuss over a tree ? The DOT could sell the tree for firewoood and then give the proceed toplanned parenthood. Win win eh libs ?

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bronski

Oct-06-13 9:10 AM

Really, if you don't know the circumstances behind this Steiner then you should not be making such a comment. It is not just a matter of cutting down the tree it is the reason behind it and that is just to spend money because see the DOT is at a use it or lose it situation. As Camarogirl points out, put up a guardrail. It is not a bit dramatic when a loved one may have planted that tree and watched it grow. People today do not cherish things anymore. Sad day for us.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LilrudSteven

Oct-06-13 10:01 AM

Is it on her property or State property? If the DOT says it could be cut at any time, it seems like it's on State property. Guide rail would be more expensive than cutting the tree.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

sabres9289

Oct-06-13 10:26 AM

Bronski,if you take a look at Stoners history of comments you will see the best thing to do is not respond or react to them. He has sold chemicals in the six figure range world wide so obviously his job has had an adverse reaction to his ability to think straight.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

commentor

Oct-06-13 10:27 AM

If the tree fell into the road I don't think a guardrail would stop it. They should have the property owners sign an agreement that if the tree causes any damage at any time they would bear all costs for damages or injuries.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

savetree

Oct-06-13 10:56 AM

Here is the rest of the story and why my mother is mentioned. When they stopped the plan to cut it a few years ago, it was because she was sick and it upset her. I spoke with a Supervisor from the DOT and he said, "There is no reason to cut that tree and upset your mother.It is about the budget. If we do not spend enough money each year, we do not get the same amount back to spend. I will find the crew something else to do". I had to fax medical information to him and they stopped the removal plans. Also, in the 1970's my father and grandfather stopped the removal of the tree. So why did they wait until 2010 to bother us again? Is it safety or money? The guard rail mention is from our asking the DOT about safety on the road overall. They speed limit was brought up. The new DOT Supervisor now commented and I quote once again, "Lowering the speed limit in that area of Rt 83 will cause more accidents because the locals will not pay attention,& hit the people driving th

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

savetree

Oct-06-13 10:58 AM

Let me finish.. DOT feels that the local people will not follow any new speed limit and will cause more accidents hitting those that will follow it.. also, they refuse and caution signs. This makes me wonder if is is about safety or money. Due to what they told me three years ago. Clearly I was told by the DOT that if they do not spend the same amount each year the do not get it back. Why two stories from them?

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

savetree

Oct-06-13 11:00 AM

Read the article again, those that think the tree will fall. It has been deemed healthy by the DEC. A tree contractor was out here from another area and told me the tree is healthy and would not take the DOT's job. Also, we offered to have the limbs trimmed. The DOT refused that also.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

savetree

Oct-06-13 11:04 AM

Now that I have given the public the Rest of the story.. in closing, Bottom line, we are being lied to by the DOT. Why two reasons? Why not go for other options? Why wait since 1970? Money that's why. "It ain't over till the fat lady sings, I have another week until my next gig". I will be calling the news to expose the whole story.. have a great day everyone! Thank you to those with intelligent comments and for your support. Much love Gina.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

localresident

Oct-06-13 12:42 PM

Uh, sure. Let's eschew motorist, equestrian, bicyclist, etc. safety for sentimentality's sake. It's a tree. 10 feet away from it are all sorts of other trees, tons of 'em! Facepalm.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Oct-06-13 1:40 PM

I think we need a couple of new road signs in NY(even though people ignore them)such as: CAUTION!!!!TREES AHEAD DO NOT ENGAGE STAY ON THE ROADWAY DO NOT CROSS THE FOG LINE or DO NOT TEXT AND DRIVE A TREE COULD JUMP OUT IN FRONT OF YOU. Lastly put the whole state on a zero based budget!!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

kcw007

Oct-06-13 3:02 PM

Gina, is that tree legally yours, is it actually growing on your land, or the state-of-way? From the photo in the article I can't see how that tree isn't growing totally out of the state owned right-of-way! Moreover, those limbs are most definitely growing over the state land. As matter of well decided law, anything growing on/over the public right-of-way belongs to and is the responsibility of the governmental entity that owns the road; regardless as to who may have planted it. Unfortunately , many people think that their property begins at the edge of the pavement. The truth however is that the government commonly owns ten, fifteen and even more feet past the pavement. By DOT standards the tree is an obvious hazard. Anyone who concerned about that tree can send a certified return letter to the DOT outlining the dangerous conditions found there. That puts the state on legal notice and makes it responsible for damages if the situation isn't remedied.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

kcw007

Oct-06-13 3:17 PM

As a practical matter, government administrators often welcome being duly placed on "Prior Notice" of dangerous conditions by alert and concerned citizens. Being legally served, they are then obligated to correct the problem in a reasonable timeframe, or face being held liable for future damages. Such legal notice affords them the opportunity to move on past these emotional/political based squabbles, such as we see here. They can then rightfully say, "As we have been legally served, and there is in fact a "defect", we have no choice but to remedy the situation".

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Oct-06-13 3:50 PM

All this over a poplar tree!

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProudToBeUnAmerican

Oct-06-13 5:50 PM

It's called a fixed object hazard. Even if you drove drunk into the tree and killed yourself the state is still liable and there is no limit on how much you can sue for. If it's in DOT ROW and they use federal funds to rehabilitate the road, they are obligated to remove the hazard.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DarkStar

Oct-07-13 3:19 PM

For some reason all of my comments I've posted today have disappeared for some reason.

Well what I said earlier, that I guess someone took offense to was that I don't see a hazard as it's not on a curve, not hanging dangerously over the road and it's supposedly in good health.

Yes it's near the road, but if they are going to cut it down for that reason they are going to be very busy since most roads have at least a few trees in a similar location.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DarkStar

Oct-07-13 3:21 PM

kcw007,

But just because someone claims something is a hazard doesn't make it so.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

kcw007

Oct-07-13 4:05 PM

Darkstar,

If the DOT says it's a hazard by their standards then it's a hazard as it's their land, their tree, their responsibly, their liability in the event that someone is injured. If that were a granite boulder with the same diameter as that tree trunk would you still think it not a hazard? Moreover, the fact that the matter has now gone public in a newspaper article which includes quotes from a high ranking DOT official acknowledging the hazardous situation and the need to remove it, as cemented the fate of tree even further. This article and photo, proving that the state had prior knowledge, and did have such concerns for a number of years no less, would most certainly be used as damning evidence against the state in a malfeasance/negligence lawsuit. FYI- A number of comments( at least 6?) posted earlier have been indeed been removed for some reason.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

kcw007

Oct-07-13 4:26 PM

Darkstar,

You note that the road in that immediate area is not on a curve, implying that someone is unlikely to slide off the road? Would you then also conclude that the steel guardrail on the other side of the road was an unnecessary installation on the part of the DOT?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Carlaw

Oct-08-13 4:09 AM

Too many workers, not enough work? Leave the tree alone and find some real work to do. Too many highway workers, not enough trees!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Carlaw

Oct-08-13 4:10 AM

Too many workers, not enough work? Leave the tree alone and find some real work to do. Too many highway workers, not enough trees!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Carlaw

Oct-08-13 4:10 AM

Too many workers, not enough work? Leave the tree alone and find some real work to do. Too many highway workers, not enough trees!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Carlaw

Oct-08-13 4:10 AM

Too many workers, not enough work? Leave the tree alone and find some real work to do. Too many highway workers, not enough trees!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 26 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web