« Youth fighting for climate change action should inspire Oregon politicians | Main | Peter Fernandez, Public Works Director, is failing to enforce Salem's tree ordinance »

January 29, 2020


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The way I read the penalty matrix, they were assessed per tree.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but it looks to me like the Gatti brothers violated SRC 86.120c, but they are only being charged with violating SRC 86 030a. The latter covers topping a tree, but the former is about removing a tree -- the definition of which includes removing "more than 30% of the crown" which is certainly true in this case. Curiously the form that charges them under SRC 030a says that they "removed" four trees. So why weren't they charged under SRC 86 120c? The penalty for that is up to $2,000 per violation "in addition to the value of the tree."

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Become a Fan