If you look at the details (an exclusive neighborhood) and the actual numbers, there is nothing unusual about it. Also interesting is that the person claiming there is is political henchwoman New York Attorney General Letitia James - which in itself signals yet another kangaroo court case.
You really go out on a limb in Trump's defense don't you?
It's understandable that 'property values' in an exclusive neighbourhood would be appraised at a premium, but this was a
charitable tax deduction to himself. The charitable donation deduction is an incentive for reforestation, not for land value or resale appraisal. If this were true, are you're saying that anyone who has trees on their property can claim a charitable tax deduction, and if your property happens to be in an exclusive neighbourhood, then you're entitled to a larger deduction?
Tax deduction for tree removal (if deemed a necessary business expense), or within a forest management plan, such as reforesting are normal practices (typically taxed at 25% municipal property rate), however; they are not considered charitable donations. James was right to call Donald out on
tax evasion in this case.
Secondly, are you saying that because they are Trump trees, they are somehow more valuable than those in National Parks that Donald is not only planning to defund, but also exploit for corporate profit?
Federal lands are for the benefit of all people and wildlife, and there are laws in place to protect them, but Trump intends to remove those protections to drill, baby drill. This will cause irreversible damage in fragile ecosystems and the habitats of endangered species. If Donald intends to use public lands for expanding his policies for resource extraction, he ought to first consider the consequences of such actions and follow the science of conservation. That would be the normal thing to do, though Trump is anything but normal.