Mind your own damn business: enough with the insane heritage tree crap

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have lived in a neighborhood with the tree obsessed and they can get quite ridiculous.

A lot of time trees may appear beautiful and healthy from the outsides but inside they have fungus or are rotting. This harms of the integrity of the tree and a bad storm could bring down the tree or it's even possible that it just reaches a point and breaks. off a limb from disease inside.

Despite having certified arbor professionals talk to the neighborhood about this, people would still insist that the tree should be saved even when the professional would say the tree is dying, it is a hazard, the fungus or bugs can infect other healthy trees. It was crazy.

Would love more specifics on this alleged thing you are outraged about - having dealt with UFA if a tree is dying they will grant a permit for its removal and will do so right away if the tree is a danger to people or property. If you removed a tree based on an experts opinion but without UFA permission you broke the law and deserve to be called out on it.

I'm hearing that UFA is getting less accepting of removing trees solely because they are a danger to property. People yes, property maybe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:id rather have more trees than houses

So you want poor people to suffer?

What do poor people have to do with this? Adding housing units isn't going to increase affordable housing. The only way to help poor people with housing is by having the government write checks to their landlords.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have lived in a neighborhood with the tree obsessed and they can get quite ridiculous.

A lot of time trees may appear beautiful and healthy from the outsides but inside they have fungus or are rotting. This harms of the integrity of the tree and a bad storm could bring down the tree or it's even possible that it just reaches a point and breaks. off a limb from disease inside.

Despite having certified arbor professionals talk to the neighborhood about this, people would still insist that the tree should be saved even when the professional would say the tree is dying, it is a hazard, the fungus or bugs can infect other healthy trees. It was crazy.

Would love more specifics on this alleged thing you are outraged about - having dealt with UFA if a tree is dying they will grant a permit for its removal and will do so right away if the tree is a danger to people or property. If you removed a tree based on an experts opinion but without UFA permission you broke the law and deserve to be called out on it.

I'm hearing that UFA is getting less accepting of removing trees solely because they are a danger to property. People yes, property maybe.

Hearing where? Count me skeptical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:id rather have more trees than houses

So you want poor people to suffer?

What do poor people have to do with this? Adding housing units isn't going to increase affordable housing. The only way to help poor people with housing is by having the government write checks to their landlords.

Not to mention, there tend to be more trees is wealthier neighborhoods, which means those neighborhoods have better air quality and are cooler and shadier in the summer. If you care about poor people in cities, you should want more trees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The large trees are great, but eventually they do get unhealthy and can come down.

If they plant lots of trees to replace it, no big deal.

The reaction on Nextdoor is not to taking down diseased trees. It's to developers cutting down healthy heritage trees as a routine part of doing business and not blinking at the fines because it's just assumed it will be paid on every project. There was a whole article in the Post, emergency legislation passed, etc. None of this is about diseased trees.

+1

Trees are really important for urban livability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:id rather have more trees than houses

Says the person who has a home, amiright?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The large trees are great, but eventually they do get unhealthy and can come down.

If they plant lots of trees to replace it, no big deal.

The reaction on Nextdoor is not to taking down diseased trees. It's to developers cutting down healthy heritage trees as a routine part of doing business and not blinking at the fines because it's just assumed it will be paid on every project. There was a whole article in the Post, emergency legislation passed, etc. None of this is about diseased trees.

+1 There was even a post on DCUM in the last year about a woman who hated birds because they woke her kids. The number of people who recommended cutting down trees for that very purpose was the saddest thing I'd ever read on here. It is a big deal to take down a healthy heritage tree, or any tree because it's simply a nuisance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:id rather have more trees than houses

Says the person who has a home, amiright?

Developers aren't creating more houses, and especially not more affordable units. They're clearcutting lots to turn an 1800 sq ft house built in 1930 into 6k sq ft house to maximize profit on the flip. It's a ridiculous red herring to tie this issue to affordable housing or density.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:id rather have more trees than houses

Says the person who has a home, amiright?

Developers aren't creating more houses, and especially not more affordable units. They're clearcutting lots to turn an 1800 sq ft house built in 1930 into 6k sq ft house to maximize profit on the flip. It's a ridiculous red herring to tie this issue to affordable housing or density.

Agree. This is new single family home construction. I’d like to see urban areas assess a stormwater fee on homes that would only be refunded if you had trees or other landscaping to help drainage (not permeable pavers). I’m tired of people cutting down trees, creating excess runoff, and draining it on a neighbors property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good grief, it is a city. It's already a concrete jungle anyway.

It doesn't have to be a concrete jungle or a heat island. https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/reduce-urban-heat-island-effect

[Anonymous]

Imagine actively hating trees and wanting cities to be a concrete slab. Imagine being this person.


Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:id rather have more trees than houses

Then move to a rural county. You’ll have more trees around you than you could count in a lifetime.


But DC is a city. Not a forest. Sounds like you can’t figure that out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Imagine actively hating trees and wanting cities to be a concrete slab. Imagine being this person.


Wow.

Imagine being the person who feels like they can dictate what other people do with their own private property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine actively hating trees and wanting cities to be a concrete slab. Imagine being this person.


Wow.

Imagine being the person who feels like they can dictate what other people do with their own private property.

I hate to break it to you but that is what cities are, zoning in particular.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The large trees are great, but eventually they do get unhealthy and can come down.

If they plant lots of trees to replace it, no big deal.

The reaction on Nextdoor is not to taking down diseased trees. It's to developers cutting down healthy heritage trees as a routine part of doing business and not blinking at the fines because it's just assumed it will be paid on every project. There was a whole article in the Post, emergency legislation passed, etc. None of this is about diseased trees.

+1

Trees are really important for urban livability.

Tree preservation is a pretext for racist NIMBYs to prevent construction of affordable housing.