Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PakkyT t1_j3sazp3 wrote

To save people a click, the removal of the trees was not directly related to the removal of the homeless camp. It just happens that a homeless camp there was removed and then later Walmart cleared out a bunch of trees and also the railroad owning some of the surrounding land did the same. The area in question are buffer zones near a section of river protected under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, so even if you own the land, you can not simply do things like remove trees and vegetation. So now Walmart (and the railroad agreed to do it as well) has to restore about 200 trees that were removed.

It does not appear Walmart had any direct involvement with the homeless camp removal the prior year.

65

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3sdu1s wrote

Seems like Walmart was one of the complainants that led to the removal. And I’d guess the motive for clearing the trees was to stop people from camping there again.

26

somegridplayer t1_j3sfbre wrote

>The area in question are buffer zones near a section of river protected under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, so even if you own the land, you can not simply do things like remove trees and vegetation.

Private landowners do this and just pay the fines.

The fines need to be way way steeper.

18

SYNTHLORD t1_j3sjaty wrote

I was a wetlands delineator for a while. A lot of people, homeowners especially, get frustrated with wetlands protection laws. However many MA homeowners especially should be thankful for wetlands due to their ability to reduce and control storm water runoff and floods.

Without them we would look a lot more like Texas when it rains, and a lot of our towns already have ridiculous water tables and fucked up basements.

Companies are obviously the biggest perpetrators of wetland destruction though. It’s funny how they end up on the same graphs as invasive species.

26

giabollc t1_j4038c2 wrote

And they can also be used to prevent any development leading to more homeless.

1

SLEEyawnPY t1_j3ubzh3 wrote

>I was a wetlands delineator for a while. A lot of people, homeowners especially, get frustrated with wetlands protection laws.

The Supreme Court seems likely to classify wetlands as not being subject to the federal Clean Water Act of 1972:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sackett_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency_(2023)

That is to say a "waters of the United States" may have to pass some fashion of test of being deep/wide enough to sail a yacht through for the act to be applicable; marshes, bogs & swamps won't cut it.

0

brufleth t1_j3sl7n3 wrote

You do not want to do that as a landowner. You will be fined and probably more significantly you can be made to restore wetlands. It can be a massive headache and very expensive.

4

RevengencerAlf t1_j3t23u0 wrote

To be clear, COMPANIES do this. Small private landowners like homeowners get absolutely fucked. The fines aren't means tested so what s a slap on the wrist to wal-mart or even a medium sized business could be soul-destroying for a homeowner, plus you will almost always be saddled with the cost of restoring it, as wal-mart was here. Having to replant one or two trees if that's all you did may be annoyingly expensive but absorbable, but depending on what you did restoration could wind up costing as much as your house to restore the same drainage conditions, erosion protections, etc.

1

brufleth t1_j3sj7la wrote

Who in their right fucking mind thought you could just clear out a bunch of trees on (or near) wetlands?!?! You could barely get away with shit like that in the 80s!.

8

GreatAndPowerfulNixy t1_j3tiiak wrote

A developer in my former hometown got away with it. They'd start developing on the edge of the wetlands, get caught and get in trouble, pay the fee, then keep going a week later. They did this long enough that they killed off the entire protected salamander population, so the area isn't considered protected anymore.

I want to Molotov their offices.

Edit: Because I want to name and shame, the developer is On The Rail Farm Company.

4

doublesecretprobatio t1_j3snwsd wrote

> It does not appear Walmart had any direct involvement with the homeless camp removal the prior year.

I thought it was widely understood that it was the city that cleared the camp, coincidentally just before the opening ceremonies for the Blackstone Heritage Museum across the street.

3

PakkyT t1_j3sr8yv wrote

>I thought it was widely understood that it was the city that cleared the camp,

Yes, I mentioned that it wasn't Walmart because I thought the subject on this topic was poorly written to make it sound like Walmart illegally cleared a homeless camp.

2