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

[Anonymous]

Cities benefit greatly from green corridors, for example streets and sidewalks liked with trees as it provides shade and cooling against the urban heat island effect. Trees make communities much more livable. Every urban development effort should include trees, especially if there are existing trees that can be protected.

[Anonymous]

Old trees kill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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. [/quote

Racist you don't want minority affording dc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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. [/quote

Racist you don't want minority affording dc

Perhaps you havent noticed but development or "increasing density" or what us old timers call "gentrification" is what drives minorities out of the city.

Here's the formula: Buy a single-family home from a black family, turn it into a bunch million dollar condos you sell to rich white people (and you can make room for more condos by tearing down all the trees) and then wonder how D.C. is getting so white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Businesses chopping down trees so they can make more money....Where have I heard this story? Oh yes, this is The Lorax. This is literally a parable about the environment that we teach children.

+1