treelooker
Treehouser
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/n...back=.gde_2563716_member_201433603#cmComments
right re intent, no doubt fueled by the communication with the risk manager. They overreacted to target rating and neglected to do a reasonable level of inspection for condition. re species, ficus in Hong Kong are about 70% of the urban canopy because they are extremely durable and adaptable. Mitigation options were evidently not considered, nor were the contributions of the tree.
That's 5 Omissions, unless they show otherwise. Ignoring the BMP on 5 major points does not sound like due diligence, but IANAL.
It's a breakdown in communications, if the risk manager answers to the county manager. If it was intentional, maybe the appraised value could come out of their checks. Why should taxpayers foot the replacement bill?
Coppicing could be considered here. And we need to remember that "obvious defects" with any kind of adaptive growth are very poor indicators of strength and risk--that is the consensus among researchers.
right re intent, no doubt fueled by the communication with the risk manager. They overreacted to target rating and neglected to do a reasonable level of inspection for condition. re species, ficus in Hong Kong are about 70% of the urban canopy because they are extremely durable and adaptable. Mitigation options were evidently not considered, nor were the contributions of the tree.
That's 5 Omissions, unless they show otherwise. Ignoring the BMP on 5 major points does not sound like due diligence, but IANAL.
It's a breakdown in communications, if the risk manager answers to the county manager. If it was intentional, maybe the appraised value could come out of their checks. Why should taxpayers foot the replacement bill?
Coppicing could be considered here. And we need to remember that "obvious defects" with any kind of adaptive growth are very poor indicators of strength and risk--that is the consensus among researchers.
