Comments on Gatti brothers fined $2,000 for tree destruction, but they should pay moreTypePad2020-01-30T05:21:38ZBrian Hineshttps://hinessight.blogs.com/salempoliticalsnark/tag:typepad.com,2003:https://hinessight.blogs.com/salempoliticalsnark/2020/01/gatti-brothers-fined-2000-for-tree-destruction-but-they-should-pay-more/comments/atom.xml/Jim Scheppke commented on 'Gatti brothers fined $2,000 for tree destruction, but they should pay more'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e20240a4e1d3d0200d2020-01-30T17:15:13Z2020-01-30T17:15:13ZJim ScheppkeI'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but it looks to me like the Gatti brothers...<p><br />
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." </p>Michael Slater commented on 'Gatti brothers fined $2,000 for tree destruction, but they should pay more'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e20240a5064b71200b2020-01-30T05:41:09Z2020-01-30T17:24:18ZMichael SlaterThe way I read the penalty matrix, they were assessed per tree.<p>The way I read the penalty matrix, they were assessed per tree.</p>