[jacket3ree]

This is possibly tangential, but IMO it is illustrative of the larger "administration" issue. The trees that fell on Alpine road were growing on Stanford land. Another one fell today and blocked a lane. I would imagine the family of the man who was killed will file a major lawsuit. How many people does Stanford have in the facilities department? Plenty. Somebody was undoubtedly responsible for making sure things like this didn't happen by examining the trees and removing those that were even a potential danger. They failed. Worse still, IMO, after four trees fell and one caused a death, Stanford didn't do anything. Another tree fell today, fortunately killing nobody, but that is just luck. Obviously there is a major issue there that should have been addressed, even if belatedly. Is anybody going to get fired? I doubt it.

Hiring a bunch of people that don't actually do anything is a typical bureaucratic method to increase you power, prestige, and salary. If nobody evaluates the performance of these organizations and makes them justify their existence with something other than verbiage, this is what you get. Then people wonder why nobody trusts Stanford when they propose some construction project. There is no possible excuse for this situation.

I don't want to read in to what you are saying here, but if you are accusing Stanford Facilities of general incompetence because some trees fell, I take exception. There is a reasonableness test that would apply to alleged negligence. How many trees do you think are on Stanford land?  Is it reasonable to expect none of them to fall during a cyclonic storm with 70 mph winds? What do you mean by no possible excuse for this situation?  Sure, if there were an arborist's report from five or ten years ago indicating specific trees that should be removed due to potential hazard and that report was ignored, and those trees indeed fell, that's one thing. Frankly I would be surprised if it is possible to have arborist reports for the sheer number of trees on Stanford land and keep those reports current.

People file lawsuits over all sorts of things both real and ridiculous.  I'd need to see specific evidence before making a blanket statement of negligence like I think you made here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Should I sue my neighbor because a gigantic tree branch fell on our side of the fence and dinged some stuff? Or should I have sued when his tall, mature Laurel tree fell in my backyard on a blue sky day, splitting the uprights between bedroom and detached garage right onto my pickup, because he had raised grade around the trunk, thereby leading to girdling? (That's a big no-no.)   No - that's why I have a chainsaw.  And some luck on my side.

[jacket3ree]

This is possibly tangential, but IMO it is illustrative of the larger "administration" issue. The trees that fell on Alpine road were growing on Stanford land. Another one fell today and blocked a lane. I would imagine the family of the man who was killed will file a major lawsuit. How many people does Stanford have in the facilities department? Plenty. Somebody was undoubtedly responsible for making sure things like this didn't happen by examining the trees and removing those that were even a potential danger. They failed. Worse still, IMO, after four trees fell and one caused a death, Stanford didn't do anything. Another tree fell today, fortunately killing nobody, but that is just luck. Obviously there is a major issue there that should have been addressed, even if belatedly. Is anybody going to get fired? I doubt it.

Hiring a bunch of people that don't actually do anything is a typical bureaucratic method to increase you power, prestige, and salary. If nobody evaluates the performance of these organizations and makes them justify their existence with something other than verbiage, this is what you get. Then people wonder why nobody trusts Stanford when they propose some construction project. There is no possible excuse for this situation.

I don't want to read in to what you are saying here, but if you are accusing Stanford Facilities of general incompetence because some trees fell, I take exception. There is a reasonableness test that would apply to alleged negligence. How many trees do you think are on Stanford land?  Is it reasonable to expect none of them to fall during a cyclonic storm with 70 mph winds? What do you mean by no possible excuse for this situation?  Sure, if there were an arborist's report from five or ten years ago indicating specific trees that should be removed due to potential hazard and that report was ignored, and those trees indeed fell, that's one thing. Frankly I would be surprised if it is possible to have arborist reports for the sheer number of trees on Stanford land and keep those reports current.

People file lawsuits over all sorts of things both real and ridiculous.  I'd need to see specific evidence before making a blanket statement of negligence like I think you made here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Should I sue my neighbor because a gigantic tree branch fell on our side of the fence and dinged some stuff? Or should I have sued when his tall, mature Laurel tree fell in my backyard on a blue sky day, splitting the uprights between bedroom and detached garage right onto my pickup, because he had raised grade around the trunk, thereby leading to girdling? (That's a big no-no.)   No - that's why I have a chainsaw.  And some luck on my side.