[travelguy]

no one has to 'give up' property for roadway improvements. property owners are compensated, and it is all legal, falling under the umbrella of 'eminent domain'. i am glad that the trees are saved. unfortunately the developer of the villages has already removed quite a few very large trees in the new Villages of Fruitland Park area. the property has very few trees on it as it is, and i do not understand why any existing trees have to be removed.

[justjim]

Originally Posted by travelguy

no one has to 'give up' property for roadway improvements. property owners are compensated, and it is all legal, falling under the umbrella of 'eminent domain'. i am glad that the trees are saved. unfortunately the developer of the villages has already removed quite a few very large trees in the new Villages of Fruitland Park area. the property has very few trees on it as it is, and i do not understand why any existing trees have to be removed.

Sometimes trees do need to be removed for safety reasons. This is the case of the two trees in the middle of the road. Trees are renewable but people aren't. If the trees were not a major safety issue, I would go to any reasonable length to save them.

I like trees as much or more than most, however, that is not the issue here in this particular situation. I will say this one more time and then I have saiid more than enough on this subject.

I have driven down this road several times. The trees are a "time bomb" for a very serious accident. The situation needs action now and not put off to a latter date or until after somebody is seriously injured or killed.

Either cut the trees down or buy the necessary property to fix the road so it is no longer a safety hazard. If it comes down to just two choices, I choose people over trees.