Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont is facing scrutiny after thousands of trees and bushes were illegally chopped behind his Greenwich home, despite his public support for statewide tree planting efforts. Lamont was accused of cutting down over 180 trees in a protected wetland area to improve the view of a pond from his $7.6 million residence. This led to anger from neighbors and environmental concerns due to the impact on the ecosystem in the area. Lamont allegedly hired workers to cut down the trees without permits, prompting a citation and a cease-and-correct order from the Greenwich wetland association.
Property manager Fred Jacobsen witnessed the tree cutting and reported it to the authorities, describing it as a coordinated destruction of the ecosystem. The workers also crossed property lines, trespassing onto land owned by INCT LLC, a Delaware-based company. The Lamonts, along with their neighbors and the Ashton Drive Association, were cited for wetland violations in Greenwich. This raised questions about the governor’s commitment to environmental conservation, given his previous efforts to plant trees in urban areas of the state.
Despite the backlash, no criminal charges were filed over the alleged trespassing. However, the Greenwich wetland association issued a cease-and-correct order and called for the damaged area to be restored. Locals are demanding that the governor replace the trees and shrubs that were illegally chopped down. Lamont, a wealthy Democrat with an annual income of over $54 million, has claimed that the dispute is between the homeowners association and one of the neighbors, and that they are working to resolve the issue.
The incident involving Governor Lamont is not an isolated case of tree chopping on private property. In a similar situation in New Jersey, a culprit was fined $13,000 for cutting down 32 trees without permission. The controversy surrounding the tree cutting at Lamont’s property highlights the issue of hypocrisy among public officials and the importance of holding them accountable for their actions. The clash between the need for environmental conservation and personal interests is a recurring theme in cases like this, where powerful individuals are accused of disregarding ecological concerns for their benefit.
