Hello All, 

This is my first post here in r/Treelaw.  We are looking for some guidance regarding a shared big leaf maple that developers are wanting to remove to build a retaining wall and house.  The current condition of the area around is clear cut and graded, though they have been keeping some space around the tree until things are resolved.  

At first, the project manager told us they were given permission by the King County (WA) to remove the shared tree and claimed it was all theirs.  The "proof" they provided was initial permitting documents that showed the tree being removed and the county having no remarks and approving the permit.  

I requested a survey and the tree (\~48" at the base) was a good 12" on our side.  Still, they claimed it was all theirs to remove and they would "hate to get their legal team involved"  I told them that if they could take a straight edge and connect the two property line marks on either side of the trunk without touching the tree, it was theirs. They couldn't. Crickets.  

Just recently, we got this arborist report and to me, it seems nebulous at best.  I highlighted the questionable sections and would love some review by those who know.  To me, I interpret the report as being vague with a lot of "maybe this could happen" along with the admission that the grading and drainage that had been done already causing damage to the roots.

Do we tell them to pound sand?  Do they get a climber up there and prune for safety (We're totally fine with that option), does their building under a potential "hazard tree" mean they are assuming liability?  Do we lawyer up and defend the tree, or bargain for another replacement? They seem desperate, as it is holding up their completion of grading and infrastructure installation.

Thanks for your insights!

Developers Want our Shared Big Leaf Maple!