old3eyes:

richms: If I was property shopping with an eye for development, having zero native trees on it before buying is looking more and more attractive now.

Having no trees on it is better.  If it's gotten any tree you can bet the tree huggers in the council  will do anything to prevent you from  clearing the site..

KiwiNZ:

Lias:

DravidDavid:

Lias: I really hope someone sneaks in once the noise has died down and chops/burns/poisons both the bloody trees. Pity we can't do that to the protestor.

That's a bit...Rough.  I think when the noise dies down, the property owners wishes should be respected.

The property owner who really wanted to cut down the trees but has been bullied into not doing so by hordes of unwashed hippies and the media?

As to why, I can think of many reasons, but for a start

A: If the trees get killed, they can build the house they wanted, how they wanted.
B: It will piss off the hippies.
C: Decent supply of firewood.

Is there any real reason to insult those who believe differently to you and those who care about the world around them 

DravidDavid: So it's staying in place in exchange for compensation.  That's fair if the owners have agreed to it.

If I was that land owner, I wouldn't be settling for anything less than 6 figures.  Not sure if you could convince the local Iwi to separate with the kind of cash I would want in the name of nature when it came down to signing the cheque.  You know, since it's such an important "500" year old tree and all, I'd say $800,000 was pretty fair.  Otherwise, it would be coming down in place of a new swimming pool. 

SepticSceptic:

DravidDavid: So it's staying in place in exchange for compensation.  That's fair if the owners have agreed to it.

If I was that land owner, I wouldn't be settling for anything less than 6 figures.  Not sure if you could convince the local Iwi to separate with the kind of cash I would want in the name of nature when it came down to signing the cheque.  You know, since it's such an important "500" year old tree and all, I'd say $800,000 was pretty fair.  Otherwise, it would be coming down in place of a new swimming pool. 

Yep, all those placard-waving protesters can dig deep and put their money where their mouths are, and fund the compensation. Why the heck should it come out of my rates ?

scuwp:

SepticSceptic:

DravidDavid: So it's staying in place in exchange for compensation.  That's fair if the owners have agreed to it.

If I was that land owner, I wouldn't be settling for anything less than 6 figures.  Not sure if you could convince the local Iwi to separate with the kind of cash I would want in the name of nature when it came down to signing the cheque.  You know, since it's such an important "500" year old tree and all, I'd say $800,000 was pretty fair.  Otherwise, it would be coming down in place of a new swimming pool. 

Yep, all those placard-waving protesters can dig deep and put their money where their mouths are, and fund the compensation. Why the heck should it come out of my rates ?

If only a taniwha lived in the tree....they like money. 

mattbush: This will cost the Auckland ratepayers...it will be a very expensive tree!!

Only thing it showed me was just how much of a idiot, Len Brown is.

MikeAqua: So now if you want to remove trees on your property you should:

1) Get consent.
2) After you have consent to remove the trees,  drill a hole in said trees and pour in some suitable herbicide.
3) When it stats to die, then call the arborist in.
4) if someone trespasses on you land and climbs tree to prevent arborist cutting down tree in full compliance with the law, tell them to stay in the tree as long as they want because it is already dead.

It always fascinates me that environmentalists are happy to violate property law when it suits them, but if someone breaks environmental law they howl in outrage:  Hypocrisy much?

richms: The environment is more than just trees. The removal a few trees to allow greater use of the section is an improved environment in many ways.

KiwiNZ: Our native trees are being lost one tree at a time, it is not a silly comparison. One could say your trivialising the loss of trees 100's of years old is being silly.