Developers in D.C. are free to cut down "protected" trees

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pick one: 1. affordable housing and green lighting the development needed to increase density or 2. having the proper tree canopy to ensure DC doesn’t act like a heat sink.

Either way, all the stereotypicaly, upper class folks with plenty of yard signs proclaiming their virtue to us all will be hypocritical about this when they choose trees and nimbyism over their desire to help poor people and address cutting trees down to make room for projects..

This is a terrible false equivalence.

You don't need to build skyscrapers to achieve the development needed. You could increase the housing capacity of the city by like 30% simply by eliminating single family zoning without cutting down a single tree because duplexes can be built on the existing footprints. Axe the height limit in the urban core and you can expand it even further without touching a single mature tree.

DP but the PP is correct. The choices are in fact concrete jungles or leafy green neighborhoods. If you support more density you support the former. The two cannot coexist.

No, that isn’t correct at all. My single family house has four residents. We also have a bunch of trees. If you tore down our house and built a small apartment building on the existing lot, you could build it taller but not wider and house much more than four people, without needing to do anything to the trees.

These giant trees have giant roots that prevent development. All you bleeding hearts should go fight palm oil development or Brazilian rainforest destruction. That’s a real source of climate issues. Attacking a poor homeowner from being able to use their small lot in the city is nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A tree in a city full of trees is not important enough to justify not building/remodeling a home. It’s just not.

Trees aren’t rare. Ever fly over DC? It looks like a forest. There are thousands of “hundred year old trees” in DC.

Cut it down. Build. Plant another when construction is finished.

This.

Seriously fk one tree. I have been through this exact issue in dc. It’s expensive as fk. Border tree wirh neighbor. Oh man let me tell you the quickest way to make enemies and drive up a budget. Peoples livelihoods are on the line sometimes with this. Maybe planting an extra tree outside the city is a good way to fix this. If you haven’t been through it you have no clue and whatever you say is based on ignorance.

Your own ignorance, and that of the other "fk the trees" posters, is astounding. Your hubris and skewed values are sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trees grow back. It’s not like they’re an endangered species.

Learn something about the difference between a young tree and an old tree. They are not the same thing at all. They don't have the same effect on the environment, they don't even give off the same chemical signals. The law doesn't protect old trees because some people think they look nice -- there are real environmental reasons.

+1. And the older tree is bigger with more branches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pick one: 1. affordable housing and green lighting the development needed to increase density or 2. having the proper tree canopy to ensure DC doesn’t act like a heat sink.

Either way, all the stereotypicaly, upper class folks with plenty of yard signs proclaiming their virtue to us all will be hypocritical about this when they choose trees and nimbyism over their desire to help poor people and address cutting trees down to make room for projects..

This is a terrible false equivalence.

You don't need to build skyscrapers to achieve the development needed. You could increase the housing capacity of the city by like 30% simply by eliminating single family zoning without cutting down a single tree because duplexes can be built on the existing footprints. Axe the height limit in the urban core and you can expand it even further without touching a single mature tree.

DP but the PP is correct. The choices are in fact concrete jungles or leafy green neighborhoods. If you support more density you support the former. The two cannot coexist.

No, that isn’t correct at all. My single family house has four residents. We also have a bunch of trees. If you tore down our house and built a small apartment building on the existing lot, you could build it taller but not wider and house much more than four people, without needing to do anything to the trees.

These giant trees have giant roots that prevent development. All you bleeding hearts should go fight palm oil development or Brazilian rainforest destruction. That’s a real source of climate issues. Attacking a poor homeowner from being able to use their small lot in the city is nuts.

+100

Sincerely,

Coalition for Smart Growth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pick one: 1. affordable housing and green lighting the development needed to increase density or 2. having the proper tree canopy to ensure DC doesn’t act like a heat sink.

Either way, all the stereotypicaly, upper class folks with plenty of yard signs proclaiming their virtue to us all will be hypocritical about this when they choose trees and nimbyism over their desire to help poor people and address cutting trees down to make room for projects..

This is a terrible false equivalence.

You don't need to build skyscrapers to achieve the development needed. You could increase the housing capacity of the city by like 30% simply by eliminating single family zoning without cutting down a single tree because duplexes can be built on the existing footprints. Axe the height limit in the urban core and you can expand it even further without touching a single mature tree.

DP but the PP is correct. The choices are in fact concrete jungles or leafy green neighborhoods. If you support more density you support the former. The two cannot coexist.

No, that isn’t correct at all. My single family house has four residents. We also have a bunch of trees. If you tore down our house and built a small apartment building on the existing lot, you could build it taller but not wider and house much more than four people, without needing to do anything to the trees.

These giant trees have giant roots that prevent development. All you bleeding hearts should go fight palm oil development or Brazilian rainforest destruction. That’s a real source of climate issues. Attacking a poor homeowner from being able to use their small lot in the city is nuts.

This seems like a good thing to me. More trees, less development.

[Anonymous]

so you want dc to be even hotter and relentless in the heat? Old growth Trees create a cooling effect that cannot be mirrored by younger trees planted to replace them until our offspring il be dead, so of no use to us or them and I have an 11 year old and don't even know wether they'll have kids so im going to try and make life good for the currently living an new trees are for the future, old trees for the present.

[Anonymous]

Developers know the rules when they buy a property and should abide by them. If they can't legally build the house they want on a given property, then they shouldn't buy the property. The 100-year-old oak tree didn't just spring up after the sale.

Trees absorb pollutants and capture rainwater. Their canopy provides shade and helps reduce energy costs. They are home to wildlife. They can provide natural privacy screens, reduce traffic noise, and add beauty to our surroundings.

Not everyone wants to live in a soulless neighborhood where each lot is stuffed with a McMansion. And not all of us value money above all.

[Anonymous]

We purchased a lot 10 or so years ago before the tree protection canopy act or whatever it is called. Right as they were announcing it, we cut down every tree in the area that would prevent building to avoid what was coming down the pike. The law is ridiculous - what do people want, more housing or trees? Just require planting 3 trees for every tree you cut down or something like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Developers know the rules when they buy a property and should abide by them. If they can't legally build the house they want on a given property, then they shouldn't buy the property. The 100-year-old oak tree didn't just spring up after the sale.

Trees absorb pollutants and capture rainwater. Their canopy provides shade and helps reduce energy costs. They are home to wildlife. They can provide natural privacy screens, reduce traffic noise, and add beauty to our surroundings.

Not everyone wants to live in a soulless neighborhood where each lot is stuffed with a McMansion. And not all of us value money above all.

Amen to that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We purchased a lot 10 or so years ago before the tree protection canopy act or whatever it is called. Right as they were announcing it, we cut down every tree in the area that would prevent building to avoid what was coming down the pike. The law is ridiculous - what do people want, more housing or trees? Just require planting 3 trees for every tree you cut down or something like that.

That was smart. Otherwise you might’ve been stuck paying for (and paying taxes on) an unusable piece of property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:so you want dc to be even hotter and relentless in the heat? Old growth Trees create a cooling effect that cannot be mirrored by younger trees planted to replace them until our offspring il be dead, so of no use to us or them and I have an 11 year old and don't even know wether they'll have kids so im going to try and make life good for the currently living an new trees are for the future, old trees for the present.

+1000. Trees contribute significantly to livability of communities. If you want nothing but tall buildings and a lifeless environment of concrete, steel, glass and asphalt you should move across the river to downtown Arlington.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We purchased a lot 10 or so years ago before the tree protection canopy act or whatever it is called. Right as they were announcing it, we cut down every tree in the area that would prevent building to avoid what was coming down the pike. The law is ridiculous - what do people want, more housing or trees? Just require planting 3 trees for every tree you cut down or something like that.

You can tell what people want just by looking at what they pay for. People pay more money for housing in communities with more green space and tree canopy. If everyone in your neighborhood did what you did, it would tank the property values in your neighborhood. You are what’s called a free rider and it’s not a good thing.

[Anonymous]

How about more public trees and less peeping into neighbors yards, biddies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about more public trees and less peeping into neighbors yards, biddies?

Are you claiming that there is not a public interest in violations of public laws? That’s a pretty incredible- and ignorant- view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about more public trees and less peeping into neighbors yards, biddies?

Are you claiming that there is not a public interest in violations of public laws? That’s a pretty incredible- and ignorant- view.

DP

I think she means plant all the trees your little heart desires on public spaces. But when you own a piece of ground, you get to say what grows - or not - on it, and it’s none of anyone’s business.