2.4k
u/jawshoeaw 2d ago
Punishment should be the destruction of the facility and replant the trees.
1.9k
u/theblenderr 2d ago
No, the punishment should be jail time for the decision makers. It’s insane that if any person did this they’d go to jail straight away, but when a company does it, it’s viewed as if the company has its own mind and there aren’t people making the decisions.
498
u/phatmaniac57 2d ago
I feel like this ALL THE TIME.
It’s like the general populace forget that it’s people making these decisions. Actual people. Like flesh and blood people. People who eat and shit and stub their toe on the coffee table.
And these people make fucked ip decisions and hide behind being part of an organisation or a company or a conglomerate or some faceless term so that they do not have to face the law of the land.
I’m with you, stick the decision makers in jail, the people who make the choices to fuck the world, to raise the prices, to gouge those last few cents out of people’s pockets.
Fuck them
60
u/Throwawayrip1123 1d ago
It’s like the general populace forget that it’s people making these decisions. Actual people
It's truly boiling my blood. People yapping about how company x or y is doing this or that and receiving no punishment.
Company is not some organically spawned construct we fucking find in the wild. It's a collection of people. Go after the fucking people.
The law that allowed people have limited responsibility was a mistake. Go after the greedy fucks with full throttle. Throw them into jail, literally, no bail, nothing, until the trial.
That kind of disregard for law should have the punishment be harsh as fuck. Like, unusual and cruel level harsh.
Again - allowing people to form a company that then insulates them from responsibility because a company did the things, not the person, was a grave fucking mistake.
18
u/JerryCalzone 2d ago
the basis of capitalism is that the person at the top is not personally liable - if that were to change it would be a different game.
→ More replies (4)22
u/sioux612 2d ago
My main worry used to be that it might be hard to figure out who made the decision, or a patsy would be found for it or soemthing like that
But nowadays I know that people will write EVERYTHING in emails, no matter how incriminating
293
u/31513315133151331513 2d ago
Yes, but also tear down the data center and replant the trees.
122
u/ChromosomeDonator 2d ago
The constructions have been suspended. Google has apologized and announced that they plan to replant trees elsewhere, although the area is not equivalent to the area that was felled. The planting area is 130 ha, and felled area was 530 ha, from which is unclear if the entire 530 ha area is the contested issue.
Google did have permission to cut down the trees, but they started it before the environmental impact assessment was fully completed. Google claims that they believed the work was lawful and that they had coordinated with the local authorities for it and started as instructed.
So this isn't a clear case of a missing permit, but failing to do a lawfully required step in the process before starting the project. It is currently still under investigation where the mistake lies and who made the decision to start the construction. Obviously mister John Google himself did not rock up to a forest in Finland with bulldozers and tear that shit up immediately. There are multiple different entities and authorities involved, and the actual work was obviously done by Finnish contractors or partners.
I fucking hate that I need to search elsewhere to get actual fucking facts nowadays. You just will never get the real fucking story on this shithole site that runs on pure exaggerated or false narratives. It is so fucking tiring nowadays.
51
→ More replies (1)6
u/Moof_the_cyclist 2d ago
Force the C-suite and board to personally do hard labor doing the replanting.
→ More replies (39)54
u/ZenCrisisManager 2d ago
If you want to really make the people who matter feel the pain then you confiscate ownership equity and sell it to third parties. That’s the fine.
The more serious, the higher percentage of ownership equity is confiscated. Your company illegally destroys a forest? Maybe the owners or stockholders lose 50% of their ownership.
I’m telling you. That company would straighten right the fuck up.
→ More replies (1)16
u/Throwaway_Consoles 2d ago
Holy shit why did I never think of this. Suddenly you would have companies doing everything they can to make sure they never break a law
146
u/Blossom_Tiara 2d ago
Exactly make the punishment fit the crime destroying nature should come with the responsibility of rebuilding it, not just paying a fine.
14
u/Ill-Description3096 2d ago
That's kind of just a fine at the end of the day. Company pays people to do some demo and plant trees.
33
u/butonelifelived 2d ago
But they aren't making money with the facility they are being required to tear down
1
u/HomeGrownCoffee 2d ago
If i cut down my neighbor's fully grown tree, it would probably cost me $10k. $10k times the 250k trees they cut down would be an appropriate fine.
They would learn not to do that again.
1
u/OkImplement4628 2d ago
Its hardly nature. The forest cut down was commercial forest slated for cutting in an industrial zone. Source: i live 40mins from it. Im anti Google data centres.
0
u/Zonianama 2d ago edited 2d ago
You can romanticize the nature of foreign countries in your mind however you want, reality is that over 90% of Finnish forests are not forests. They are fields of trees lacking of diverse ecosystems because of the forest industry cuts them down and replants the trees as soon as possible.
Forest ownership and cutting it down for profit even has it's own greenwashing term: "Metsänhoito" in english "Forest management" but in Finnish it sounds like you're taking care of the forest for its best interests, like nursing an animal back to health.
Finland only has 6,5% of old, untouched forests. Finns have fucked their country's nature way before the internet ever was a thing.
What google did is not an anomaly, it's how the system works. Finns do not care about the nature, they care about the idea of caring about nature.
If the U.S has problem with empty nationalism stemming from repeating "freedom" all the time, Finnish equivalent is saying "we are close to nature and we care about it". It's an empty nationalistic rhetoric that's untrue, creating false pride and fake ideas about how Finns treat their nature.
1
41
u/VirtualFutureAgent 2d ago
They kind of did this in my town. A rich guy bought a large house on a hill overlooking a lake, but the view was blocked by trees in a park next to his property. His landscapers "accidentally" cut down a bunch of trees in the park, giving him the view he wanted. The town hit him with a really big fine and replanted the trees. He ended up selling the house and moving away.
→ More replies (1)4
u/PineappleOnPizzaWins 2d ago
Similar near here.. a popular place for camping/other recreation out of the way that was mostly just fisherman and holiday shacks.. well some of the richer people moved in and didn't want pesky trees blocking their view of the nice water so they poisoned them. Nobody was caught doing it and obviously because the trees just "died" they thought they'd been super slick.
Local council was PISSED. Those trees do crazy things like stop erosion of the banks... they actually matter. They knew damn well that every other rich prick who'd moved in was waiting to see what happened and if the answer was "nothing" then every single tree would be dead in a year.
So because they couldn't punish anybody in particular they replanted the trees.. and then erected massive ugly signs where the trees used to be with warnings about poisoning trees.. so now instead of nice view of the water through the trees they got a big "TRESS PREVENT EROSION, DON'T POISON THEM" view instead.
Said rich people howled endlessly about how "they hadn't done anything wrong" (sure, it just so happened that three months after you buy the place every tree blocking your view up and dies) and tried to get it removed... nope. Their son got caught trying to cut the signs down and was immediately arrested and spent the weekend in jail/charged with destruction of council property (sadly parents money got him out of that as the courts weren't local).
Finally they ended up selling the place... a local bought it nice and cheap because nobody wanted it with the view ruined.. at which point the council tore the billboards down.
This was ~25 odd years ago now and still makes me smile. Back then the entire local government was basically locals who'd lived there for generations and gave zero fucks for rich tourists who thought there were above the law.
13
u/don1138 2d ago edited 2d ago
Strongly agree. They will get away with it, of course, but as long as we’re imagining a better world…
An endeavor on this scale was clearly an “ask for forgiveness rather than permission” action. There is not a plane of material existence on which this could ever be interpreted as a whoopsie by a good-faith actor.
And the scale and duration of the operation should be taken as proof of malicious intent, and be met with automatic disqualification.
Meaning the project should be canceled, and the funds required to repair the damage — no matter how large the estimate, be it 1, 2, 10 or 100 years of Google’s gross receipts — must be surrendered immediately.
The judgment can be appealed, and refunds may be applied, but the money must be surrendered up front under penalty of criminal charges against all board members and shareholders of the offending actor. Like a “Trump grabbing Maduro”-type paramilitary action against these corporate officers.
Unless the consequences of this kind of multigenerational crime against humanity are felt deeply by the humans at Google who made these decisions, they and their apparatchiks and fellow travelers will just do it again. And worse next time.
Which means, of course, that they will do this kind of thing again.
And worse next time.
Whoopsie! 🤗
→ More replies (2)17
u/captainFantastic_58 2d ago
Mandatory prison time for CEO would likely provide the corporate culture change we want to see.
→ More replies (5)5
9
3
1
u/boatenvy 2d ago
Apply whatever fine they can and then put a freeze on the approval...any work done while the freeze applies results in destruction of that unpermitted work.
1
→ More replies (16)1
247
u/Majestic-Contract-42 2d ago
Finland has speeding ticket fines that are a % of income.
I think there was some CEO who got fined 300k or something for a traffic violation.
Do the same.
Cool with paying fines?
Ok then.
5% of global revenue for the year the offense happened in.
Cheers.
Fines do work, but why it was ever a flat amount has always been so dumb to me.
Make it a % of income/assets/revenue and it will actually have an affect.
95
u/Striking_Compote2093 2d ago
Just make ceos criminally liable for the crimes of the company. What would happen if you cut down that forest? Ceo goes to jail for life.
They keep talking about responsibility and risks, there they go.
17
u/CptMcDickButt69 1d ago
Corpos and other rich people conspired to make an economic system where they could get away with horrendous crimes by defining their ventures as "legal people" that would just suck the punishment up.
This is basically the one conspiracy theory thats just out there in the open.
I pay someone to dump poison sludge into a lake? I, deservedly, go to prison.
Company CEO and partners pay someone to dump poison sludge into a lake? Company gets fine, CEO and partners get private bonus which is secure forever from fines and punishment. Its insane.
6
u/JohanPertama 1d ago
Just make ceos criminally liable for the crimes of the company. What would happen if you cut down that forest? Ceo goes to jail for life.
Well that's when the rich will just use a shell company with a fall guy to take the punishment.
I might be jaded but I can guarantee that's how these guys think
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)5
u/lfAnswer 2d ago
Much better: Community work. I'd bet most CEO's are going to be more afraid of having to pick up trash for 30 hours than 1 year if prison
→ More replies (2)12
u/The_Verto 1d ago
Nah even fines aren't enough since they can still say "worth it". Reversal of damage needs to be included too. In this case their land should be seized and in addition to the fine they should pay costs of reforesting that area.
4
u/googdude 1d ago
I did see something like that where someone knocked down a historic building with the intention of paying a fine and moving on. Their government made them rebuild the historic building to look exactly like it used to and they weren't able to use the site for what they wanted it for.
9
u/Cee-Bee-DeeTypeThree 2d ago
5% seems very light when your comparing an entire forest vs a measily traffic violation. Someone needs to be facing criminal prosecution AND a hefty fine.
8
u/Extreme_Design6936 2d ago
5% of revenue for a company is a lot though cause only about 11% of revenue is net profit. It would half the profit for that year. That's enough to make a rumble with shareholders.
I wonder if there's anything to stop them from setting up a shell company to break the law with a very low revenue.
→ More replies (1)4
4
u/JakBos23 2d ago
I always thought look at the income from the infraction. Triple it. Make them spend 100 billion putting the trees back. Trees dead? 1 million per tree per year till they are the size that they cut down.
2
u/Suspicious_Dingo_426 2d ago
The size of the fine doesn't matter to corporations, they just pass it along to their customers through increased prices.
2
u/dantemp 1d ago
a lot of people are very rich without any income, there's no silver bullet solution
and don't tell me percent of net worth is better because there are old people with barely any money that live in their old homes that have gotten insane evaluation over the years and a fine based on that would leave them on the streets
1
u/YamiZee1 1d ago
Even so, starting with income is a step in the right direction. Maybe it wouldn't hit the retired millionaire, but at least it would hit any ongoing businesses.
1
u/dysfunctionalbrat 1d ago
You can make the law more complex and make it a percentage of things like: expenditure on someone's behalf, value of loans, annual income of trusts related to them, etc.
They have nothing in their bank account, but they're not willing to show how they afford a private jet? Give them a choice, suspended prison time with community service if they really cannot make the money appear.
→ More replies (1)1
u/AutoCockerPB 1d ago
No there very much is a solution. Don’t track take home money. Track their gross income. Doesn’t matter if they broke even, you acquire $300 million, that’s the number they use. I don’t care if they have $7 in the bank.
→ More replies (2)1
u/k4zetsukai 1d ago
Then they should be extra careful or might need to liquidate to pay the fine. % of all totally owned assets and any trusts ure a member of. Easy job.
1
u/baardbestaan 2d ago
1hr community work or 1 day in prison per tree for whoever authorized this (if they did it knowingly it was illegal)
1
u/SquirrelFluffy 1d ago
Because you'll have forever arguments about the value of those income/assets/revenues.
1
→ More replies (4)1
u/Remote_Peach9109 1d ago
That's a good way to never get another company to build in Finland. Google shouldn't have been able to buy the land in the first place without the ecological survey done.
272
u/Blacksad9999 2d ago
They need to make the fines a flat percentage of their yearly revenue. Not something "small" like 5 million dollars.
If the fine were 10% of their revenue, they'd change their tune really quickly.
190
u/Hot_Falcon8471 2d ago
No, the fine shouldn’t just be monetary. They should absolutely be fined a painful percentage, but then the land should be confiscated from them and they not allowed to use it.
37
u/rolfraikou 2d ago
Spot on. If they can't use it responsibly, they shouldn't be allowed to fucking have it. Sure, if it's a small misunderstanding you wouldn't have governments seizing land, but they felled a LOT of land.
They knew what they were doing was wrong.
They knew the fine was "worth it" and therefore it is a blatant abuse.
1
8
8
1
u/Energyeternal 2d ago
While I would absolutely be in favour of this ethically, it does run into hurdles... Similar to the calls for Thames water in the UK to be nationalized and all debts be written off, Google, is part of the business world and the business world is as despicable as any company operating in it.
The problem is that national governments need to cooperate with that world for their countries to run, as much as I hate that we need private enterprises who care only about profit and not about human survival...
And because governments need to keep the trust of the business world, their hands are often tied. In the case of Thames Water in the UK, writing off those debts signals to the business world that the UK would happily destroy lender confidence and leave lenders without reimbursement, reducing the chance lenders see the UK as a good place to invest, despite it being the morally right course.
In this case, seizing that land from Google would be the right thing to do since the crime is so obviously destructive, but it signals to the business world that Finland would seize land from a private company (which I also believe violates the Finnish constitution).
Sadly gives are kind of the limit unless they want to open a can of worms. In which case I'd go for a 50% of yearly revenue fine.
0
12
12
u/mrteas_nz 2d ago
Rich people need to do real jail time in real jails. That might be enough of a deterrent.
Because they're not even paying these fines with their money...
8
u/MyFocusIsU 2d ago
CEOs need to become personally responsible for corporate failures. There isn't enough accountability of those individuals to be socially responsible and therefore personal fines and incarceration should become their punishments.
→ More replies (1)10
u/Dyslexicpig 2d ago
Or remove their ability to operate in the country for a year.
→ More replies (2)7
7
u/WereTheBrews 2d ago
In this case, succeeding the land, and bringing it back to its original state with a hefty as hell fine like you said of their revenue. Really disappointed to hear of this "settlement" when they just displaced wolves that are now venturing into towns after going against a court order to yield.
5
u/MrHazard1 2d ago
Just make them fix their mistake and keep their datacenter shut until it's fixed
→ More replies (3)7
u/jccaclimber 2d ago
The city of San Francisco did that until enough lawyers shut it down. People figured out that the cheapest way to build a house was to submit one set of plans, build something different, and then pay the fines. Right over a historically protected property. Eventually they started making owners rebuild the original thing they had destroyed.
→ More replies (1)5
→ More replies (40)5
u/Cooperativism62 1d ago
The need to nationalize the companies that commit these crimes. Thats the equivallent of corporate jail.
→ More replies (1)
242
u/phk-ifmu 2d ago
the only thing that would end this with them being punished, is if they were forced to replace every tree cut down and not allowed to build at all.
however, they will get hit with a fine and then build there anyways, just as they planned.
the "fine" wont even be enough to hurt them let alone actually cause them any issues.
everything is legal for a price.
what is the price of a forest?
58
u/surewhynotokaythen 2d ago
Even replacing every tree doesn't give the wolves that lived there their home back. It'll take decades for that to regrow even modestly
8
u/FeelMyBoars 2d ago
An additional fine applies every year that 20% of the trees in the affected area are less than 30 years old. That will encourage them to plant some older trees and also make sure that they survive. It's not going to fix the problem, but it will speed up the process by a decade or so. Maybe make it proportional to the average age and logarithmic so that it's front loaded and doesn't just get ignored.
12
u/PineappleOnPizzaWins 2d ago
They should be hit with every single cent for fixing EVERYTHING about it.
Replant the trees, rehome the wolves, the costs of the government needing to enforce it all, fucking everything.
Then the people who made the call should be criminally charged.
24
u/-4-Play-King- 2d ago
To them it's just an additional fee, so many big corporations function like that. Pay the fine or fight things in court till they can't afford it anymore.
It's peanuts compared to the money they actually make once they achieve the thing they got fined for to begin with.
1
u/oddministrator 2d ago
And the local government that told Google they were permitted to do this work, you know prior to the Federal government stepping in and Google immediately ceasing the act, how should that local government be handled?
Fines to Google are peanuts compared to the money they make, sure... but what are penalties against a government when the government's money is the people's money?
1
1
u/tzaeru 2d ago edited 2d ago
what is the price of a forest?
About 5k€ per hectare.
It was almost wholly a tree farm to be cut down sooner or later; There's almost no natural forests in Finland, especially not in the south.
The difference here mostly is that no new forest will be planted - since there'll be a data center extension there instead.
1
u/johndough1st 2d ago
A first born child or two should be an appropriate deterrent for this sort of nonsense.
0
u/caholder 2d ago
Yeah but then the company will just leave then theres no jobs and no trees
Probably need to let them build but hit something else that really hurts
Or stab em in the back later. Play the long game
0
u/Anthaenopraxia 2d ago
what is the price of a forest?
In Finland? Basically nothing. The whole country is one giant forest dotted with lakes and saunas. Flying there feels like looking out over Mirkwood. The issue is the environmental impact like pollution and disruption of wildlife, but really the main problem is that they started cutting down the trees before they had completed all the forms and assessments. They jumped the gun and people are not happy about it. Finland is actually pretty ideal for data centres because it's cool, wet, stable and electricity is quite cheap due to both hydro and nuclear powerplants. If only Google would actually pay appropriate tax I would almost support building them here, but na.
192
u/Dry_Quiet_3541 2d ago
There are countries with traffic fines that are a % of net worth, fines should hurt everyone equally.
192
u/Remarkable_Tale_7554 2d ago
Like ... uh ... Finland
45
1
18
4
u/FG910 2d ago
So if i were to get a ticket there… they would pay me?
Them overdraft fees arent cheap2
u/Kitchen_File_8946 2d ago
My dad got a minimum fine as he was not paid a salary last year only dividends which is not accounted for. At least no in Denmark.
1
u/Syn-th 2d ago
Yeah this would make a sting. I think people should also be personally responsible though. None of this company nonsense it's the company and you Steve. You sent the email saying chop now you personally are kept on sight planing trees until you've undone what you did. Yes that's expensive that's why your company have to give over ten percent of their value.
1
u/Zonianama 2d ago
The right wing government is trying to get rid of this practice because it hurts the rich who own fast cars and make a lot of money.
Recently a very wealthy person who spend money making racist newspaper got his fine lowered with accounting tricks.
34
u/AtrumsalusOG 2d ago
Thats a great point, what would the punishment be for them to listen?
32
u/ManuelTzetzes 1d ago
Replant the trees.
HUGE fine that will hurt them.
Get the fuck out of Finland.
But obviously in this modern age, such appropriate punishments are unthinkable for companies like Google.
They know they can do whatever the fuck they want.
9
u/PavelPivovarov 1d ago
Jail time for CEO.
Also Finland is known for charging fines based on persons income, so should be the same for corporations.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (6)15
u/TotalChaosRush 1d ago
I would say
Replant trees.
A reasonable fine for doing so.
A ban on all permits in Finland until the property is fully restored (if they cut down 200 year old trees, then 200 year old trees need to be there to be considered restored)
→ More replies (1)19
u/inbruges99 1d ago
You have to make it pointless to do the thing. Easiest way would be to not let them build whatever they were gonna build there and force them to return it to how it was.
I think in some US states if you illegally cut down a tree for a better view or whatever they fine you and make you pay to have the tree replaced with an equally mature tree, thereby making cutting down the tree pointless.
→ More replies (1)15
u/Agitated-Ad2563 1d ago
Why would we need a punishment? A retribution would be much better.
Make them grow a new forest, twice as large and diverse in its wildlife. Or make them save another forest from clearing, also twice as large and diverse.
Which means, money.
→ More replies (23)8
u/Ok_Cauliflower_3007 1d ago
One of the things I like about the way punishment for demolishing listed buildings works in the UK is if they’re feeling petty enough the authorities can insist you rebuild as close to what was lost as possible with period materials which costs way more than just rebuilding it would, trying to source 200 years old bricks or period mouldings or whatever. It not only tries to restore what was lost as much as is possible (it’s not possible to just turn back the clock if course) but it is inevitably incredibly expensive. They only do it in the most egregious cases, generally the ones where a business very clearly decided to ignore planning and work on the better to ask forgiveness than permission principle, with the intent of teaching them that no, asking permission would have been way better.
→ More replies (1)10
u/No-Huckleberry-6767 1d ago
No limited liability. Just find out who decided it and take their personal assets.
→ More replies (2)8
u/DontStalkMeNow 1d ago
Speeding fines in Finland are a percentage of your income.
I don’t see why the amount of other fines can’t be determined in the same way.
8
u/RoosterReturns 1d ago
prison time? if i burned down a forest thats what would happen to me.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (58)7
14
24
u/Jamespm76 2d ago
I think fines for rich people should not be money and they should be fingers instead
12
u/Juliuscesear1990 2d ago
Find the one in charge and send them to jail. Who ever signed off on doing it gets jail time and if the corporation makes it hard, go up the ladder.
4
u/Shafter111 2d ago
They will buy a fall guy. Who will apologize and take his multi-millions to be in a comfy scandanavian prison.
→ More replies (2)7
u/Jamespm76 2d ago
Jail just put more strain and money on other citizens to look after them while they’re incarcerated. Losing a finger is quick and cheap and memorable
→ More replies (2)1
u/breaducate 2d ago
The offenders fingers, or next thing you know they'll be subtracting digits from the help.
1
12
u/CritFailed 1d ago
Pull their building permits. Cleared those trees without permission? Ok, you can't build there.
8
3
u/Few_Cauliflower2069 1d ago
They don't have a building permit either. It's pretty hard to get permission to build something that won't fit on your lot due to all the trees you're not allowed to take down
11
u/Mexican_JohnTremblay 1d ago
They should fine the CEO and board members personally. Make it come out of their pockets. Bet they change their tune
6
0
u/pixel293 1d ago
And if the company just reimburse them? Look at the California tax on the ultra rich. The companies are paying them to not move out of California to avoid the tax.
10
u/Makeyourdaddyproud69 1d ago
Financial punishments should be percentage based to reflect true punishment. 1 trillion dollar company? 200 billion to be paid over 1 year. Guess who won’t do that crime again?
1
14
u/RogerRabbot 2d ago
Make fines percentage based. Then it matters. If you are charged 40% of your entire business net worth every month its less than 3 months to comply or you basically can no longer operate in that country.
If googled worldwide net valuation is 1 trillion, the fine per month would be 400 billion. And it applies to google and every single one of its subsidies.
→ More replies (11)
7
u/SideInitial3961 2d ago
In Japan the humans behind it would suffer real life-changing consequences.
7
u/Ok_Purple_4567 1d ago
True. I knew someone who bought a monumental house and went through all the formal channels to get permits to renovate and alter the building. With no success. Then he asked what the fine is for destroying a monument. After getting the answer he ordered a bulldozer.
→ More replies (1)
35
u/JojoTheEngineer 2d ago
I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding about what actually happened here. Google didn't just randomly clear protected forest. The logging itself was reported to the Finnish Forest Centre, and there were no identified protected natural sites restricting it.
The issue is mainly procedural: Google carried out the clearing before the environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the data centre project was completed.
That doesn't necessarily mean the project or the clearing would have been rejected after the assessment. In fact, Finland's environment minister has confirmed that the current EIA legislation doesn't provide for direct sanctions for this particular failure.
You can absolutely criticise Google for proceeding before completing the process, but there's a difference between violating environmental procedures and actually destroying legally protected forest. The headlines don't always make that distinction clear.
→ More replies (21)
6
u/henryeaterofpies 2d ago
The punishment should be a removal of their permits and a requirement to fully restore the forest.
And the CEO and everyone in the chain of management must write 'I will respect the law' 1 million times.
6
u/yusill 1d ago
How about your not allowed to build here ever(even after replanting sell it or keep it as a natural park but you won't get a permit for as.mucb as a outhouse ever) and your business won't get a building permit anywhere else in the country till you replant every tree with the age appropriate and if you made any money from those trees you owe 10x the amount just as a extra FU. A fine is a cost of doing business. Preventing any business is a actual cost to the business. That says you gonna do it the right way from the start or you don't get to make money off my people at all.
23
u/Mobile_Machine_3820 2d ago
How is no one in the comments mentioning that this is not true?
The clearing of the forest was legal and approved, but the construction hadn't been approved yet. The illegal part was creating small roads, clearing the top soil and other small construction parts.
We all hate google, but lets get the facts straight.
→ More replies (5)
1
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Hey u/Dev1412, thank you for posting to r/SipsTea! Make sure to follow all the subreddit rules.
Make sure to join our brand new Discord Server to chat with friends!
We have recently changed how posts work. Unless you are a VIP poster, your post will be queued for approval.. To become a VIP, post great engaging content. If we like it, you will be added! More information available here!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.