Tree controversy hits the Globe

[bobobb.livejournal.com]

I found this commentary interesting and it's right in Davis Square!

http://www.boston.com/community/blogs/askthepilot/2014/01/a_somerville_tree_saga_redefin.html

As a landlord who had to cut back a dying tree or have my insurance cut off (as a letter from the insurance company threatened), I have mixed feelings about this commentary and the author's suggestions. At the same time, I have three other healthy trees in my backyard I wouldn't touch.

Comments

[gruene.livejournal.com]

It actually goes against property rights less than you might imagine. There's a legal notion of the "public trust doctrine", which is that certain resources have to be protected, even if they're privately owned. Usually this applies to waterways, seashores, lakes and the like. I've never heard of it applying to an individual true, though I suppose it wouldn't be entirely beyond the bounds of plausibility.

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

As far as I can see (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_trust_doctrine), the public trust doctrine only applies to navigable waters. So I'd say that the current definitions of property rights in American law provide no basis for claiming a tree is a public trust.

[gruene.livejournal.com]

It would certainly be a novel application of the doctrine. I hope I was sufficiently clear in that.

There is precedent for using it for environmental resources that are riparian in nature, though not navigable. National Audubon Society v. Superior Court is one of the most famous applications of this.