Register free!
Search
 
     

The Green Industry's Resource Center


Click for Weather
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 05-12-2012, 10:58 AM
rosewater rosewater is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: SALINE
Posts: 63
Have written two letters addressed to Ellen Kullman and two Dupont reps that have been quoted in newspaper articles. Received a response for both from Dupont rep. First letter requested that two dead 45' Norway Spruce be removed immediately because of proximity to house. Davey Tree was out in a week and took care of it but I still have large roots littering the area. Second letter addressed my loss of privacy on the east side of my house and the poor condition my Balsam Fir and Colorado were in and asked what was the status of my claim. I am appalled and disgusted by the way Dupont has handled this: very little info to the LCO's and homeowners. I should have a comp pkg by the end of May, but I have gotten quotes on cleaning up the area, readying the soil to plant, tree replacements etc but will still line up a lawyer because I believe I will need one. I expect nothing less than fairness and honesty from Dupont but they seem to be missing the mark.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 05-12-2012, 02:46 PM
rosewater rosewater is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: SALINE
Posts: 63
starbuy- where are you located and I would be interested in knowing who your Dupont contact its. thanks
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 05-12-2012, 06:55 PM
Starbuy Starbuy is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Summit County, Ohio
Posts: 335
At this point I won't provide names publically of anyone I've spoken to at Dupont. It's understandable when a big corporation with lots of employees and subcontracted workers have differing views about issues and then some try to persecute anyone who they think is out of line in what they might say to those outside, otherwise known as media or victims of damage from their product. If the person asking me for their name works for Dupont, you can review the audio recordings of calls to check to see if employees are staying 'in line'. But, there are some good people working there that really do want to see victims treated fairly and I hope others won't hinder that process or openess in allowing information to be shared. When companies do try to shut mouths on these type of things it usually brings the wrath of government agencies at some point.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 05-12-2012, 09:33 PM
cindyb's Avatar
cindyb cindyb is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: KY
Posts: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by gqnine44 View Post
I sprayed areas of my lawn last fall at a heavy rate including around trees that I didn't care about with no negative side effects. Imprellis was used for an entire season in 2010 in test markets with no issue.

I know your property looks like hell and I hope you get reimbursed nicely from dupont. I just wanted to encourage you to keep your chin up, your property will recover - imprellis will not live in the soil forever. It was an unfortunate thing that happened but it isnt toxic dibilitating sludge that will forever ruin your property and everything that tries to grow there. The sun will come up tomorrow.
We had one treatment, I'm sure at the price per gallon, it wasn't over dosed. Toxic diblitating sludge, I like that. My weeds are growing nicely so I guess there might be hope.

Dupont can't tell us how long it'll stay in the soil, do you have an insider? I walked out tonight and looked and mine and the neighbors, my run off has deformed and is killing theirs, they didn't want their backyard treated because of their dogs.

I'm upset over the trees but the blackberry bushes I thought were going to slide through this mess. Nope, flowers bloom and then the berry falls off and it gets crunchy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewater View Post
Have written two letters addressed to Ellen Kullman and two Dupont reps that have been quoted in newspaper articles. Received a response for both from Dupont rep. First letter requested that two dead 45' Norway Spruce be removed immediately because of proximity to house. Davey Tree was out in a week and took care of it but I still have large roots littering the area. Second letter addressed my loss of privacy on the east side of my house and the poor condition my Balsam Fir and Colorado were in and asked what was the status of my claim. I am appalled and disgusted by the way Dupont has handled this: very little info to the LCO's and homeowners. I should have a comp pkg by the end of May, but I have gotten quotes on cleaning up the area, readying the soil to plant, tree replacements etc but will still line up a lawyer because I believe I will need one. I expect nothing less than fairness and honesty from Dupont but they seem to be missing the mark.
I'm gonna try to work with Dupont on a settlement, the attorneys want 33% not to mention additional charges. We've done all the work already but if I can't get a settlement that I agree with, I'll have to consider it. We'll see. I hate that its taken this long but in a way its been to my benefit to see what else is affected and dying.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 05-12-2012, 09:44 PM
cindyb's Avatar
cindyb cindyb is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: KY
Posts: 354
The $92,000 offer of 9 trees, trees were 49 ft tall.

http://whmi.com/news/article/14313

Settlement Deal Proposed For Dead Spruce Trees At Chemung Hills

April 25, 2012

4/25/12 - Oceola Township officials are expressing some concerns with a proposed settlement offer from a chemical company responsible for the deaths of trees at the Chemung Hills golf course. The course is owned by the township but operated by a management company, which discovered that nine spruce trees standing around 49 feet tall were dying from use of the chemical Imprelis, which is used to kill broad leaf weeds such as dandelions and clover. Four other spruce trees have showed signs of problems but officials believe those can possibly be saved. Township Supervisor Bill Bamber tells WHMI the chemical company DuPont has certified that the chemical was to blame but maintains it didnít know it would kill the trees. DuPont has since offered the township a settlement, which Bamber says they are still reviewing with legal counsel. DuPont has offered to remove the trees at their own cost as well as give the township $92,000 to plant and maintain replacement trees. However, Bamber says a clause in the contract stipulates that when the township is paid, the company would be relieved of additional liability, other than a very limited clause for damage of the replaced trees. Bamber says they are still in discussions with legal counsel about the proposed settlement but have concerns because they are not familiar with the chemical and in fact, the company wasnít even familiar with it because they didnít know it killed spruce trees. He says they donít know if they necessarily want to plant trees again in the same spots but also have concerns about residual issues with the chemical that could possibly affect new trees. Bamber says the chemical was taken off the market last August but it was also sprayed on many yards and residential lawns by companies, resulting in dead spruce trees all over the Midwest. The Chemung Hills golf course totals 149 acres and Bamber says once the damaged trees are gone, no one should know the difference. The matter is expected to be a topic of discussion when the township board meets next on May 3rd. (JM)
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 05-13-2012, 12:51 PM
Starbuy Starbuy is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Summit County, Ohio
Posts: 335
I don't blame those officials who are troubled by the low offer by Dupont. Think about the TRUE cost/value of those trees. Just try to find a landscape professional who will dig nursery stock 49' tall pine, crane it onto a semi bed bring it to the location, remove the existing 49' tall pine and disgard it, remove and treat the affected soil, then use a crane to plant the new 49' tall pine, all for $10,000. Ain't gonna happen. It does not matter whether the property owner will or will not replace the tree, the lost value is the same in regard to the law. Plus, the fact the property owner will be responsible for any further soil problems the EPA may deem a problem, since agreeing to Dupont's deal means relinquishing them from further responsiblity. That's why so many are finding Dupont's offer woefully low for the true value of loss and responsibility. A lot for us to consider.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 05-13-2012, 07:37 PM
cindyb's Avatar
cindyb cindyb is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: KY
Posts: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starbuy View Post
I don't blame those officials who are troubled by the low offer by Dupont. Think about the TRUE cost/value of those trees. Just try to find a landscape professional who will dig nursery stock 49' tall pine, crane it onto a semi bed bring it to the location, remove the existing 49' tall pine and disgard it, remove and treat the affected soil, then use a crane to plant the new 49' tall pine, all for $10,000. Ain't gonna happen. It does not matter whether the property owner will or will not replace the tree, the lost value is the same in regard to the law. Plus, the fact the property owner will be responsible for any further soil problems the EPA may deem a problem, since agreeing to Dupont's deal means relinquishing them from further responsiblity. That's why so many are finding Dupont's offer woefully low for the true value of loss and responsibility. A lot for us to consider.
I have priced replacement trees the size of mine, moving, I think they could only do 2 or 3 per truck and then to get something that size to grown after transplanting is iffy at best.

The future soil problems scares me.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 05-15-2012, 02:22 PM
Lawnguy8478 Lawnguy8478 is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Pa
Posts: 30
Dupont said the were taking care of the removal. It is very easy to replace 9 45 ft spruces for 93k. Hell they will have plenty of money left over to be honest.

By the way, I have no fear at all that the soil needs to be treated. Just using common sense, Imprelis absolutley knocked out violets and ground ivy last year. Take a walk around your neighborhoods and look at all the pretty purple flowers this year. That leads me to believe it is flushed from the soils.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 05-15-2012, 03:01 PM
Lawnguy8478 Lawnguy8478 is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Pa
Posts: 30
Let me rephrase that last comment. I have no fear(with how we applied it). Thankfully we used the lowest dosage possible on a spot treatment only basis.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 05-15-2012, 03:40 PM
Starbuy Starbuy is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Summit County, Ohio
Posts: 335
[QUOTE=Lawnguy8478;4412626]Dupont said the were taking care of the removal. It is very easy to replace 9 45 ft spruces for 93k. QUOTE]

If you know a nursery that sells 45+ foot tall spruces, delivers, removes old, replants new, re-landscapes what the crane destroys for under that amount (since min. 15% of that 93k is for compensation for time/trouble) please PM me. I'm in Ohio. Thanks.

Also, you were smart to just use Imprelis to spot treat. My neighbor's lawn was totally sprayed. His lawn still looks fantastic and has no weeds. The beds where my trees died are also still weed free. Nothing can grow there yet. Seems each property has it's own satuation and thus dispertion rate. I'll certainly have to wait before I let anyone attempt to replant.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2012, LawnSite.comô - Moose River Media
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:02 AM.

Page generated in 0.09332 seconds with 8 queries