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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's bullshit. A lot of DC's trees are in low-income areas. Cutting down trees isn't giving us affordable housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's bullshit. A lot of DC's trees are in low-income areas. Cutting down trees isn't giving us affordable housing.

Developers are cutting down the trees so that they can build higher density housing. Higher density housing is needed to ensure that housing is affordable. People that don’t want higher density housing in their neighborhood don’t want affordable housing in their neighborhood. It’s racism and classism masquerading as environmentalism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's bullshit. A lot of DC's trees are in low-income areas. Cutting down trees isn't giving us affordable housing.

Developers are cutting down the trees so that they can build higher density housing. Higher density housing is needed to ensure that housing is affordable. People that don’t want higher density housing in their neighborhood don’t want affordable housing in their neighborhood. It’s racism and classism masquerading as environmentalism.

No, it’s developers cutting down trees on SFH and rowhouse lots so they can build expanded SFHs that they flip for $2-3m. It really has nothing to do with more density. It’s all about trying to build 5K sq foot McMansions in urban areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's bullshit. A lot of DC's trees are in low-income areas. Cutting down trees isn't giving us affordable housing.

Developers are cutting down the trees so that they can build higher density housing. Higher density housing is needed to ensure that housing is affordable. People that don’t want higher density housing in their neighborhood don’t want affordable housing in their neighborhood. It’s racism and classism masquerading as environmentalism.

No, it’s developers cutting down trees on SFH and rowhouse lots so they can build expanded SFHs that they flip for $2-3m. It really has nothing to do with more density. It’s all about trying to build 5K sq foot McMansions in urban areas.

+1

[Anonymous]

Six or seven trees on a city block aren't doing anything to combat runoff or global warming. They're just decoration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Six or seven trees on a city block aren't doing anything to combat runoff or global warming. They're just decoration.

Mature trees capture 25-35% of rain water that falls on or near the tree.

100 mature trees absorb 140,000 gallons of storm water per year.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/real-estate/ct-xpm-2013-04-23-ct-sun-0421-garden-morton-20130423-story.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Six or seven trees on a city block aren't doing anything to combat runoff or global warming. They're just decoration.

Mature trees capture 25-35% of rain water that falls on or near the tree.

100 mature trees absorb 140,000 gallons of storm water per year.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/real-estate/ct-xpm-2013-04-23-ct-sun-0421-garden-morton-20130423-story.html

Much of the water that does drip to the ground will be absorbed by the tree's fine roots, which spread out mainly in the top foot or so of soil. The tree roots also help hold the soil to keep it from washing away in big storms, Scott says.

The impervious concrete and asphalt doesn't allow the storm water to reach the roots where trees could absorb it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Six or seven trees on a city block aren't doing anything to combat runoff or global warming. They're just decoration.

Right now the city is spending several billion dollars on a new stormwater capture system. They're doing that because stormwater is a real problem, and they've exhausted all of the cheaper alternatives. Trees do help with stormwater capture, and they're considerably more cost-effective than building new storm sewers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's bullshit. A lot of DC's trees are in low-income areas. Cutting down trees isn't giving us affordable housing.

Developers are cutting down the trees so that they can build higher density housing. Higher density housing is needed to ensure that housing is affordable. People that don’t want higher density housing in their neighborhood don’t want affordable housing in their neighborhood. It’s racism and classism masquerading as environmentalism.

No, it’s developers cutting down trees on SFH and rowhouse lots so they can build expanded SFHs that they flip for $2-3m. It really has nothing to do with more density. It’s all about trying to build 5K sq foot McMansions in urban areas.

This. Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Six or seven trees on a city block aren't doing anything to combat runoff or global warming. They're just decoration.

And you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:id rather have more trees than houses

NP and I agree. I'd also rather have more trees than people.

[Anonymous]

Don't get me started on the historic home B's and preservation rules

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's bullshit. A lot of DC's trees are in low-income areas. Cutting down trees isn't giving us affordable housing.

Developers are cutting down the trees so that they can build higher density housing. Higher density housing is needed to ensure that housing is affordable. People that don’t want higher density housing in their neighborhood don’t want affordable housing in their neighborhood. It’s racism and classism masquerading as environmentalism.

No, it’s developers cutting down trees on SFH and rowhouse lots so they can build expanded SFHs that they flip for $2-3m. It really has nothing to do with more density. It’s all about trying to build 5K sq foot McMansions in urban areas.

This. Exactly.

And what's wrong with that? People want to live in a mansion, so they build a mansion -- on their property. Yes trees are nice and important. But there is a huge opportunity cost in not developing your lot fully -- a cost the whining neigbydont pay. You want to preserve the tree? Buy the property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nextdoor blowin up because apparently someone cutdown a 'hertiage tree'. Who gives a crap? Why do people feel the need to have to stick their nose into every single thing? Let me guess, the tree huggers out there will shed tears for trees while simultaneously demanding we build affordable housing. Yet when people need to build, the same tree huggers will cry about 'what about the trees and butterflies!!' in order to prevent development.

Good grief, it is a city. It's already a concrete jungle anyway. People need to mind their own damn business, but I guess that's too much to ask for do gooders who move from saving the whales to saving city trees. Get govt the hell out of over regulating what owners do with their private land.

You sound like a very hateful person. Just move to a red state already for your "rights"

[Anonymous]

The neighbor in the WP piece is as clueless as they come. He called removing one tree "disgusting." But, he lives in a 10,000 square foot Mcmansion and earns his living though getting people to fly for leisure.

Do you have nay idea of the carbon foot print of one flight, let alone a thousand? It's akin to clear cutting a forest every day.

I'd bet he just doesn't like having a brown person move in next door.