Add me to the "minority" side. I also don't believe the Developer is using any influence, he may or may not have, to cover this up.

:1rotfl::1rotfl:

Post #435 wins my vote for best post. :eclipsee_gold_cup:

Chi-Town, thanks for the morning laugh. You have perfect timing, too. :) ......

Where oh where is Carl Hiaasen when we need him.......

I would be happy to offer him a working title.........Treed

Hi there Boom.


Treed it is!

Good point. Who is to say what we could do with that $100K to improve our community rather than spend it to repair the misdeeds of the Tree Cutting Scofflaws! I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why this has to be!:shrug:

I think a lot of people in this thread are accused of not caring when they really just don't think there is a dark, hidden cover-up conspiracy. As has been said many times before, seeing what appears to be an obvious solution to a crime and proving those allegations are two totally different things.

I definitely care, but I also like to give community leaders and law enforcement the benefit of the doubt...within reason of course...that they're doing the best they can.

That is exactly how I see it too.

Good post
 

So what are they doing?

I think if they just billed that district for the deed, then maybe someone would possibly spill the beans.

My guess would be...their job.

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.

Why don't you call and ask them?

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.