April 10, 2005 at 9:57 am #1899
We moved here in August of 2003 and until we found the right lots on which to build our new home, we began to notice that many of the beautiful lots with majestic live oaks and dogwood trees were being clear cut by most of the builders. We decided to buy 3 adjoining lots, and the main reason was because of the beautiful trees (live oaks, dogwoods, and at least 3 other species of oaks). We marked as many trees as possible to be saved and then chose a builder. After reading the regulations of the POA regarding cutting of certain numbers of some species of trees, we made it clear to the builder we wanted none of those types of trees removed, since we had enough room to move the home site to avoid cutting them. We made a mistake in choosing this homebuilder (one who has had some legal proceedings with the POA regarding following covenants). He was extremely negligent in making sure that his subcontractor did not remove any of the trees we had marked for saving. Two huge live oaks and the largest dogwood tree I had ever seen were removed! The area where we built our home at the time was in a nice heavily wooded area in the extreme North part of Diamondhead. Since building our home, approximately 10 homes have been built within two blocks of our home, and in nearly all of the homes, all trees were removed with the exception of a very few scraggly-looking trees (most of which were not oaks). Our concern is that the POA is not enforcing the regulation regarding the cutting of certain trees and the beauty that has brought many to this community is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. We have one more large section of vacant wooded lots adjoing ours and to the East. Since arriving here the number of deer we see on our property is becoming more and more, no doubt because we have some of the last natural wooded areas they can seek refuge. Our question to the residents of Diamondhead: Do we want to keep Diamondhead as it was originally planned (with majestic oaks and other native trees) or are we going to become complacent and allow contractors to make Diamondhead appear as many of the subdivisions within Gulfport and Biloxi have become (devoid of trees and homes crammed onto small lots!)? And, by the way, we were unsucessful in getting our contractor to replace the trees that were cut without our permission! So beware of the contractor you choose!April 10, 2005 at 10:33 am #1898
It would be nice to know the irresponsible contractor is.April 10, 2005 at 12:22 pm #1900
I whole-heartedly agree. I made this statement before, I thought we were a bird sanctuary. Where do birds nest without trees? I think that is why some are trying to nest in my garage.
I have some friends who are ready to chain themselves to some oaks. I am ready to join them. Any way that we can get some advance notice of the clear-cutting?April 10, 2005 at 6:46 pm #1901
I would think that a list of building permits could be provided by the POA. Also, maybe we should attend the next meeting and ask why they (POA) are not enforcing their own rules. I do not recall that they ever came out to inspect my property before or after the trees were removed by my contractor. Therefore, they probably wouldn’t know how many trees were there before or after. I believe all they are interested in is collecting the exorbitant building permit fees. I really don’t know what they use the money for. They do not have electrical inspectors, or any other inspectors (except for the water and sewer, which I believe is not under the POA anyway).April 10, 2005 at 7:32 pm #1902
Trees are a renewable resource, far better to establish ,say, a replanting covenant than infringeing on someone elses use of their property, for which they purchased with their own hard earned money. Even a requirement for a landscapeing plan is not out of the question when applying for a permit to cut the trees. There are other ways than being chained to a tree. While we all regret the cutting of nice trees, land does belong to whoever purchased it and lies in their perview as to its use within the covenants of the subdivision, which is primarly residential, its use cannot be denied only controlled within guidelines. People in the history of this country have died for the right to own property, when one tries to control the use, ect. of someone elses property it is a throwback to historic fudalism when all land was owned by the crown. America has many laws, customs, ect, for noninterfearence in the private ownership of property I think Diamondhead with its citizens reaping the cream of America’s good should be aware of this more than any other community on the coast.April 11, 2005 at 7:21 am #1903
I completely agree. Thank you for your note.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.