An Important Message

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is right: Lamar Advertising of Hartford was wrong - way wrong - to remove several dozen trees on state property so that motorists on I-84 could get a clearer view of one of its billboards

Read All 7 Comments

Posted by: roboblogger

Full Story: Hartford Courant

Related Topix

Business - Lamar Advertising, Advertising
Places - Waterbury, CT, Connecticut, Connecticut Government, East Hartford, CT, Hartford Metro
News - Opinion

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 7 of 7

Marco Van Battan Wethersfield, CT	Reply » \| Report Abuse \| Judge it! \| #1 Jun 24, 2008 Judged: 2 1 Disgusting. Sue the pants off them! Spend the money to demolish homes in Canton and Ellington and allow the trees to reclaim those sprawl towns.
John Westborough, MA	Reply » \| Report Abuse \| Judge it! \| #2 Jun 25, 2008 Sue them to replate the trees, and keep them healthy for 10 years. That way the company will not be able to profit from their acts.
Mike Houston, TX	Reply » \| Report Abuse \| Judge it! \| #3 Jun 25, 2008 Judged: 2 2 2 Horse-hockey, they are TREES not people, fine Lamar for abuse and move on. Why is everybody getting all uptight about worthless trees??? TREES DON'T HAVE RIGHTS!!!!
Karma West Hartford, CT	Reply » \| Report Abuse \| Judge it! \| #4 Jun 25, 2008 Mike wrote: Horse-hockey, they are TREES not people, fine Lamar for abuse and move on. Why is everybody getting all uptight about worthless trees??? TREES DON'T HAVE RIGHTS!!!! While I disagree with your comment, the central argument is that these trees protected the rights of PEOPLE. They blocked the view and noise of the highway and protected the hill from erosion. The fact that the advertising company did this is disgusting and they should be punished to the full extent of the law.
Anonymous Atlanta, GA	Reply » \| Report Abuse \| Judge it! \| #5 Jun 25, 2008 Judged: 1 I think the central argument is that they destroyed somebody else's property (the trees), and caused monetary damage to the local homeowners for their own monetary gain.
Tom Utica, MI	Reply » \| Report Abuse \| Judge it! \| #6 Jun 25, 2008 Judged: 1 State property is not to be taken by Lamar Advertising, regardless of whether it is trees or land. Only when you have a full eminent domain issue will you see public and private property taken to be given to others for both public and private use (i.e., New London Development Corporation versus Fort Trumbull's Suzette Kelo).
Mike Houston, TX	Reply » \| Report Abuse \| Judge it! \| #7 Jun 25, 2008 Judged: 1 1 While I do agree that the company was in the wrong, I would love to see what some of you would say if a major wind storm or lighting hit some of those trees, they fell and caused an accident or damaged someone else's property. My guess is that someone would scream, "why didn't the state clean up that ROW or control that vegetation better ....." Fine 'em & get over it. PEACE.

Showing posts 1 - 7 of 7

Type in your comments to post to the forum

Name
(appears on your post)

Comments

Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Waterbury Discussions

Topic	Updated	Last By	Comments
She's 10 and teaching self-defense	Sat	A mother	1
Cappiello Gets No Love From Rowland	Sat	nick	40
Motorcycle riders face dangers	Sat	tim bruce	45
Thieves strip cars at Waterbury dealership	Oct 10	G-MAN	41
Mixmaster Plans To Be Decided	Oct 8	Chris	1
I am looking for a jorge l dejesus jr known as ... (from Aug '06)	Oct 7	some girl	4
Police Rescue Infant From Fire	Oct 6	Joe from Har...	12