Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Lawn and Garden
Reply to "[DC] Hazardous tree not ruled as hazardous on permit removal "
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]You are only responsible for damage if you knew it was bad and did nothing. You now have a report denying it is a hazard. Let it fall, not your problem[/quote] Good advice, unless you’re actually a decent human being that gives a sh** about other people’s safety.[/quote] That's totally unfair. OP is trying to look out for people's safety, but is being stifled by the city, and is worried about liability. PP explains that OP is off the hook because they DID try to do something, but were hindered. You on the other hand, sound like a jerk. Is OP really supposed to pay $4,000 for a permit to do something the city insists isn't necessary? Agree. Let the damn tree fall. Then whoever it falls on can sue the city, which has far deeper pockets than the OP. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
