3 ms·

>The expert says you need to do X There is quite a strong incentive for the 'expert' to say you 'need to do X' when they will get paid for doing it.

potato3732842 1y ago
>There is quite a strong incentive for the 'expert' to say you 'need to do X' when they will get paid for doing it. Even if they're not being paid for the work they're still gonna be conservative to cover their own ass because they're accountable to their own licensing board or there's some 3rd party government or perhaps private stats tracking their screw ups or whatever. This is what you get when you have a subset of the general public hellbent on requiring that nothing get done without consulting a dozen different licensed professionals oversight by multiple departments, etc, etc. In a "simple" evaluation of incentives there is no incentive to cut the tree if it's not a fairly undeniable hazard but the simplicity has been polluted with a complex spaghetti of requirements.
- mytailorisrich 1y ago
  Or in this case you contact the owner of the tree before doing anything so that everything is agreed without surprises and arguments. Especially it seems that the Council had apparently done their own assessment recently without finding issues: "According to the council leader, their experts said the tree was healthy and alive in December 2024." [1] [1] https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/toby-carvery-faces-legal-action-tree-felled/ https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/toby-carvery-faces-legal-actio...
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    Sure, in fantasy land. In reality the council made the leaseholder responsible for upkeep and maintenance and the last thing the council wants is to be contacted about the specifics of that because it comes off as an attempt to shift liability, which governments hate almost as much as uppity subjects, and any attempt to do so would likely have been met with stonewalling or some nonproductive ass-covering which would have driven up the scope and invasiveness of the tree clearing operation. Say nothing of the cost of all that communication. Maybe if there was a borderline improperly close between the government officials involved and the people working on behalf of the restaurant there could have been an off record conversation in good faith but without someone willing (because they're getting paid or otherwise) to stick their neck out the council isn't gonna say off record let alone go on record saying anything less than "get rid of anything and everything that could be a hazard" (with the judgement thereof to be performed by some party who will take on the liability). The liability and responsibility situation is just to goddamned convoluted for any honest and reasonable exchange to happen.
    - mytailorisrich 1y ago
      No, that's not fantasy land at all, this is common sense, standard practice, and the default position if you are a tenant. There was no urgency: If some expert said the tree was dangerous then it would have been cordoned off while remedy was arranged. It was costing nothing to inform the landlord/owner.
      - potato3732842 1y ago
        We are not talking about asking your landlord if you can hang some window flower baskets from your studio. We are talking about a contract clause on the order of "keep the f-ing yard mowed and the trees trimmed" between two big evil organizations where Statistically Nobody(TM) really cares. I understand there's no urgency but regardless of timeframe it's just not reasonable to expect discussions to happen between government and a tenant in the way you think they should in the current regulatory environment. Nobody's immediate interest is served by doing it that way and everyone's interest is served by doing it the way they did except in this rare case the public interest and it blew up and became a "court of public opinion" thing hence the lawsuits flying every which way and the finger pointing. If you want to see organizations act how you seem to want toward government then government needs to change. Organizations are unfeeling and sociopathic in pursuit of their goals. They are keeping the .gov at the maximum arms length possible, spreading liability all around, and letting these processes hum along and "fail" in dumb ways that are probably obvious to the people on the ground (but of course nobody will take on the responsibility of raising objection) because those failures are less terrible when they do occasionally happen than the kind of problems you'd get they didn't make it SOP to run the way they run. The common sense you speak of has been implicitly outlawed by the high tax of liability that is levied upon it.
scott_w 1y ago
> There is quite a strong incentive for the 'expert' to say you 'need to do X' when they will get paid for doing it. Be that as the case may be, as a non-expert, you better come up with a strongly sourced reason that the expert is wrong and you are right before you start to act.

potato3732842 1y ago

>There is quite a strong incentive for the 'expert' to say you 'need to do X' when they will get paid for doing it. Even if they're not being paid for the work they're still gonna be conservative to cover their own ass because they're accountable to their own licensing board or there's some 3rd party government or perhaps private stats tracking their screw ups or whatever. This is what you get when you have a subset of the general public hellbent on requiring that nothing get done without consulting a dozen different licensed professionals oversight by multiple departments, etc, etc. In a "simple" evaluation of incentives there is no incentive to cut the tree if it's not a fairly undeniable hazard but the simplicity has been polluted with a complex spaghetti of requirements.

mytailorisrich 1y ago
Or in this case you contact the owner of the tree before doing anything so that everything is agreed without surprises and arguments. Especially it seems that the Council had apparently done their own assessment recently without finding issues: "According to the council leader, their experts said the tree was healthy and alive in December 2024." [1] [1] https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/toby-carvery-faces-legal-action-tree-felled/ https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/toby-carvery-faces-legal-actio...
- potato3732842 1y ago
  Sure, in fantasy land. In reality the council made the leaseholder responsible for upkeep and maintenance and the last thing the council wants is to be contacted about the specifics of that because it comes off as an attempt to shift liability, which governments hate almost as much as uppity subjects, and any attempt to do so would likely have been met with stonewalling or some nonproductive ass-covering which would have driven up the scope and invasiveness of the tree clearing operation. Say nothing of the cost of all that communication. Maybe if there was a borderline improperly close between the government officials involved and the people working on behalf of the restaurant there could have been an off record conversation in good faith but without someone willing (because they're getting paid or otherwise) to stick their neck out the council isn't gonna say off record let alone go on record saying anything less than "get rid of anything and everything that could be a hazard" (with the judgement thereof to be performed by some party who will take on the liability). The liability and responsibility situation is just to goddamned convoluted for any honest and reasonable exchange to happen.
  - mytailorisrich 1y ago
    No, that's not fantasy land at all, this is common sense, standard practice, and the default position if you are a tenant. There was no urgency: If some expert said the tree was dangerous then it would have been cordoned off while remedy was arranged. It was costing nothing to inform the landlord/owner.
    - potato3732842 1y ago
      We are not talking about asking your landlord if you can hang some window flower baskets from your studio. We are talking about a contract clause on the order of "keep the f-ing yard mowed and the trees trimmed" between two big evil organizations where Statistically Nobody(TM) really cares. I understand there's no urgency but regardless of timeframe it's just not reasonable to expect discussions to happen between government and a tenant in the way you think they should in the current regulatory environment. Nobody's immediate interest is served by doing it that way and everyone's interest is served by doing it the way they did except in this rare case the public interest and it blew up and became a "court of public opinion" thing hence the lawsuits flying every which way and the finger pointing. If you want to see organizations act how you seem to want toward government then government needs to change. Organizations are unfeeling and sociopathic in pursuit of their goals. They are keeping the .gov at the maximum arms length possible, spreading liability all around, and letting these processes hum along and "fail" in dumb ways that are probably obvious to the people on the ground (but of course nobody will take on the responsibility of raising objection) because those failures are less terrible when they do occasionally happen than the kind of problems you'd get they didn't make it SOP to run the way they run. The common sense you speak of has been implicitly outlawed by the high tax of liability that is levied upon it.

scott_w 1y ago

> There is quite a strong incentive for the 'expert' to say you 'need to do X' when they will get paid for doing it. Be that as the case may be, as a non-expert, you better come up with a strongly sourced reason that the expert is wrong and you are right before you start to act.