6 Responses to “Illegal property clearing along the river”

1. posted by Jennifer C. at April 11, 2008 9:22 am :
   

   Unless I’m misunderstanding what I’ve read, this is the first and only time the Daniels have been cited. The previous citation was issued to (I believe) Stuart Siegel and the Science Museum for clearing on the other side of the river.
   I don’t believe someone who pays over a million dollars for a riverfront property can really be that ignorant about the rules, particularly within a few months of it happening before, but I don’t want to vilify them twice for one “mistake.”

2. posted by Bill at April 11, 2008 11:42 am :
   

   Indeed. That’s what happens when you multi-task while still asleep.

3. posted by David at April 11, 2008 1:19 pm :
   

   It’s my understanding that the Daniels called the Department of Public Works and were told, verbally, if it’s your property, you can do what you want.

4. posted by Jennifer C. at April 11, 2008 7:36 pm :
   

   That may be the case, but there’s no telling what Mr. Daniels told DPW about where his property was located or what he wanted to clear. Regardless of what the person he spoke to said, nothing at the city level trumps state law.
   I wouldn’t necessarily expect a DPW customer service rep to be aware of the law, but I would expect someone who’s buying riverfront property with plans for major expansion to either be conversant with the law, or at least have a contractor with that knowledge.

5. posted by David at April 14, 2008 9:54 am :
   

   The call went to the City Arborist, who provided the advice. The clearing amounted to cutting honeysuckles. The remediation ordered by the city is to herbiocide the site and replant with the gidance of a landscape archtect. Herbicide along the river bank?

6. posted by Jennifer C. at April 14, 2008 10:34 am :
   

   Herbicide along the river bank?

   Now THAT I can believe coming from the city…

Leave a Comment