[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by mulligan

This seems, from the outside looking in, a breach of the district's fiduciary responsibility to the owners. Perhaps a query at the attorney general's office is in order.

Mulligan. I am surprised that you would say that.

The district was fined by an outside authority. Should they not pay the bill?

The district restored the trees. Are you suggesting they made money on it?

I honestly don't understand.

This is all originating from the St. John's or is it St. James River authority that is some agency protecting the wetlands and preserves. The district owns a bunch of wetlands and preserves. You aren't allowed to mess with them.

They will fine you. I don't see how paying the fine and restoring the trees is smarmy. You are just obeying the law.

[dbussone]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Mulligan. I am surprised that you would say that.

The district was fined by an outside authority. Should they not pay the bill?

The district restored the trees. Are you suggesting they made money on it?

I honestly don't understand.

This is all originating from the St. John's or is it St. James River authority that is some agency protecting the wetlands and preserves. The district owns a bunch of wetlands and preserves. You aren't allowed to mess with them.

They will fine you. I don't see how paying the fine and restoring the trees is smarmy. You are just obeying the law.

It would be far worse and far more expensive if the district did not do what it is required to do. You are on point Gracie.

[tuccillo]

I suspect there isn't any evidence at all.

Originally Posted by manaboutown

It seems to me the primary potential suspects are few in number, those who in some manner might benefit from the trees being cut down.

Could a civil action be brought by the district to recover its costs (fine(s), tree replacement, overhead, and so on) incurred due to the commission of any tortious act(s)? Plus, the public has had to pay for the time spent by law enforcement and CDD management on this matter, time which might have been spent on more productive endeavors.

The burden of proof for a civil action is normally less than for a crime - the preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt or whatever it may be in Florida.

[chuckinca]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

. . .

This is all originating from the St. John's or is it St. James River authority that is some agency protecting the wetlands and preserves. The district owns a bunch of wetlands and preserves. You aren't allowed to mess with them.

They will fine you. I don't see how paying the fine and restoring the trees is smarmy. You are just obeying the law.

Website of the St. Johns River Water Management District


.

[janmcn]

Sumter County is in the Southwest Florida Water Management District not St John's.

[graciegirl]

[graciegirl]

Agriculture → Wetlands and Permitting Wetlands and Permitting


View the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) page for more information and links to parts A through D of the Permit Information Manual.
View or download the Environmental Resource Permit Information Manual, Part B � Basis of Review
To request a print version of the manual or for more permitting information, contact your regional regulation department.

It is the intent of the District Governing Board that environmental criteria be implemented in a manner that achieves a goal of no net loss of wetlands or other surface water functions (unless otherwise exempted by statute or rule).
(Condensed and modified from Environmental Resource Permit Information Manual, Part B � Basis of Review, Chapter Three � Environmental)
Wetlands serve as spawning, nursery and feeding habitats for many species of fish and wildlife, and they often provide important flood storage and water quality functions. Not all wetlands or other surface waters provide all of these functions nor do they provide them to the same extent. A wide array of biological, physical and chemical factors affect the functioning of any wetland or other surface water community. Maintenance of water quality standards in applicable wetlands and other surface waters is critical to their ability to provide many of these ecological functions.
Permits are typically required for the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, abandonment and removal of systems to conserve the beneficial functions of these important communities and require that reasonable assurances are met.
Though some specific, limited activities in wetlands may be part of normal agricultural operations (as described in industry specific best management practice manuals), some activities conducted in wetlands may require some form of prior authorization from the District. Prior to conducting any operations in wetland areas, landowners are strongly encouraged to contact their local service office Ag Team for permitting guidance and assistance

[dewilson58]

Have we answered the OP's question yet???

[Cedwards38]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

I suspect there isn't any evidence at all.

Maybe not, but riddle me this:

If someone steals a car, and the tires from that car are found in my garage, is that not evidence enough to make me explain how they got there? Will you accept my answer if I say, "I don't know" or will you make me explain because it's my garage?

Circumstantial? Yes. Damning? For sure. Troubling? Without question. Worth pursuing? I certainly think so. Is that enough to charge someone for something? Maybe.

If someone illegally cuts down trees, and the wood from those trees is stacked in my yard, will you ask me how it got there? Will you accept my answer if I say, "I don't know" or will you make me explain because it's my yard?

Is that what happened in this tree cutting case?

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

Have we answered the OP's question yet???

Many times over.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

Many times over.

Yep.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

Many times over.

Oh Good. With +450 posts I was starting to lose faith in ToTV.

[Villageswimmer]

Originally Posted by Cedwards38

Maybe not, but riddle me this:

If someone steals a car, and the tires from that car are found in my garage, is that not evidence enough to make me explain how they got there? Will you accept my answer if I say, "I don't know" or will you make me explain because it's my garage?

Circumstantial? Yes. Damning? For sure. Troubling? Without question. Worth pursuing? I certainly think so. Is that enough to charge someone for something? Maybe.

If someone illegally cuts down trees, and the wood from those trees is stacked in my yard, will you ask me how it got there? Will you accept my answer if I say, "I don't know" or will you make me explain because it's my yard?



Is that what happened in this tree cutting case?

Agree. At the very least, sworn depositions would be taken. Maybe this was done. We don't know if a real investigation actually took place. Too many unknowns. Is this fair to those forced to pay?

[twoplanekid]

If you have a question to ask, I would suggest that you attend the next Welcome Wednesday at 11 A. M. in the District office at Lake Sumter. As representatives from all areas of our local government including law enforcement will be attendance, it’s a great place to start. I was impressed with the people in attendance, the presentations given and the amount of time given for questions.

Ask questions and let your feelings on this matter be known at this meeting.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by naneiben

Agree. At the very least, sworn depositions would be taken. Maybe this was done. We don't know if a real investigation actually took place. Too many unknowns. Is this fair to those forced to pay?

Most people would see no reason to think that law enforcement didn't follow all procedures in gaining information. All the laws of the land protect all of us from illegal search. It simply looks to me like not enough evidence to convict.

But I think sooner or later we will find out what landscaper was hired to do this.