The New York Times Thursday examines the new Mamaroneck Tree law, and the resulting controversy, as covered by theLoop in Residents Sue the Town of Mamaroneck Over New Tree Law.
When Robert Herbst returned to his hometown about 30 miles north of New York City in 1992, he wanted his children to be immersed in the lush greenery of his childhood. But over the decades, he noticed more trees coming down to make way for bigger houses. Mr. Herbst, a lawyer, and other like-minded residents of Mamaroneck, N.Y., view the vanishing trees as a serious threat in the era of climate change. “We should be protecting trees for our own survival,” said Jacob Levitt, a dermatologist who lives in Mamaroneck. “It’s suicidal not to do it.” But some residents say they should have the right to remove any and all trees on their properties to make way for more sunlight or a home expansion, or simply because they want them gone. “People want to landscape the way they want to landscape,” said Eve Neuman, a realtor who lives in the area. more
How can you trust the accuracy of a NY Times article with an error in the first sentence (that the TOM is 30 miles north of NYC)?
It’s less than 10 miles to the Bronx border. OK, snobs may want Manhattan but the stone mile marker at the Larchmont Village Hall have it at 21 miles to NY City Hall (add a mile for the marker being moved, so 22 miles to lower Manhattan).
The Gray Lady is showing her dotage.
Interesting! Where was the Larchmont marker moved from?
For those of you who are following the lawsuit, petitioners’/plaintiffs’ response to the Town’s motion to dismiss the suit on standing grounds can be found at this link: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=7rFi3Abw9WKml6GZhzkhRw==&system=prod. The exhibits appear at the following link, under docket numbers 5, 48, and 74: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/FCASeFiledDocsDetail?county_code=XJa5dfVKlw8fs71m4CvVcg%3D%3D&txtIndexNo=VaAXXdHZthFXRIp%2FbEvEpg%3D%3D&showMenu=no&isPreRji=N&civilCase=5S%2F0YTb_PLUS_EeOiigSSGFqNRg%3D%3D. If these links expire, you can find the case by going to E-courts (NY), Westchester Supreme Court, Civil, putting in the index number, 59167/2024, and clicking on the “Show eFiled Documents” link at the bottom. Our main papers responding to the Town’s motion to dismiss appear at number 73. Although the Town could have filed a reply to our response, it has not, and the Court will now decide its motion.
Andrea Hirsch, attorney for the petitioners/plaintiffs.
The Times article inaccurately portrayed the dispute. The Times depicted the Town as “divided.” In fact, everyone who spoke at the three Town Board hearings concerning the proposed tree law, 95% of letter writers, and 400 people who signed a petition opposed the law. Anyone wanting to read the papers in the case may do so at the link below. (The name of the case is Herbst v. Town of Mamaroneck; the index number is 59167/2024. Plaintiffs’ main papers appear at docket numbers 54-56; the Town’s recently-filed motion to dismiss (on standing grounds) is at 71. The case is in the Westchester Supreme Court Environmental Claims Part.)
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/DocumentList?docketId=ADzhJC2fUhu3O4R0XURhdA==&display=all&courtType=Westchester%20County%20Supreme%20Court&resultsPageNum=1.
Andrea Hirsch, attorney for the plaintiffs