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

[Anonymous]

I’ve been through this and I don’t envy anyone trying to build when one fking tree gets in the way. I understand the heat sink arguments and the loss of urban canopy over the years. At the same time, it’s just as easy to plant like 50 trees outside the city for every one that gets cut down. You people have no idea about city bureaucracy and the financial hardship involved with construction and trees. Even a tree that might be 20% on your side of an adjoining property with your neighbors. You also seem not to understand that washinGton is a tiny town with minimal land to build on. All you’re doing is making it harder to build anything, which won’t quiet your thirst for affordable housing or any housing for that matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Is this a troll post? If so, it’s top level. I like how you assume racism is at play. You forgot to include centering, intersectionality and other academic jargon to complete your bingo board.

[Anonymous]

"You also seem not to understand that washinGton is a tiny town with minimal land to build on."

Washington is not dense at all compared to other cities. You need to get out more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"You also seem not to understand that washinGton is a tiny town with minimal land to build on."

Washington is not dense at all compared to other cities. You need to get out more.

Oh okay. We’ll I’ll just redirect my comment at all the poors jealous they won’t ever be in the position to knock down a stupid tree. America! Capitalism. Like or leave it, baby!

[Anonymous]

"At the same time, it’s just as easy to plant like 50 trees outside the city for every one that gets cut down."

Trees outside the city don't help with stormwater management, which is the big issue.

Casey trees is trying to plant trees inside the city wherever they can. In my neighborhood they're constantly getting into trouble for planting too aggressively and having to come back and take out the trees they planted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"You also seem not to understand that washinGton is a tiny town with minimal land to build on."

Washington is not dense at all compared to other cities. You need to get out more.

It’s roughly 60 squares miles, buddy. A bunch of it is Federal land and parks. You should get out more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"At the same time, it’s just as easy to plant like 50 trees outside the city for every one that gets cut down."

Trees outside the city don't help with stormwater management, which is the big issue.

Casey trees is trying to plant trees inside the city wherever they can. In my neighborhood they're constantly getting into trouble for planting too aggressively and having to come back and take out the trees they planted.

You’re “missing the forest for the trees” ha ha. In reality, we have a bunch of fking concrete roads. Are you whining about that? Kind of like Houston where there is more permeable ground to allow water to go hence the terrible flooding there. Anyway, this whole argument is idiotic and led my sensationalists who probably live in condos and have never tried to build sht in their lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"At the same time, it’s just as easy to plant like 50 trees outside the city for every one that gets cut down."

Trees outside the city don't help with stormwater management, which is the big issue.

Casey trees is trying to plant trees inside the city wherever they can. In my neighborhood they're constantly getting into trouble for planting too aggressively and having to come back and take out the trees they planted.

You’re “missing the forest for the trees” ha ha. In reality, we have a bunch of fking concrete roads. Are you whining about that? Kind of like Houston where there is more permeable ground to allow water to go hence the terrible flooding there. Anyway, this whole argument is idiotic and led my sensationalists who probably live in condos and have never tried to build sht in their lives.

*Where there is “no” permeable ground and water couldn’t drain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been through this and I don’t envy anyone trying to build when one fking tree gets in the way. I understand the heat sink arguments and the loss of urban canopy over the years. At the same time, it’s just as easy to plant like 50 trees outside the city for every one that gets cut down. You people have no idea about city bureaucracy and the financial hardship involved with construction and trees. Even a tree that might be 20% on your side of an adjoining property with your neighbors. You also seem not to understand that washinGton is a tiny town with minimal land to build on. All you’re doing is making it harder to build anything, which won’t quiet your thirst for affordable housing or any housing for that matter.

The odds that a single one of those 50 trees will live a decade let alone long enough to become a heritage tree are negligible at best. Tree planting offsets are the biggest scam in environmentalism. The real solution is for the city to enforce the ordinance with criminal charges and not fines. Developers may be willing to cut a check, but most don't want 30 days in DC jail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:id rather have more trees than houses

So move to the suburbs or exurbs.

[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.

And you have no idea what you are talking about.

Niether do you if you think a tree canopy is absorbing storm water. The little four foot rings at the tree base don't do anything to manage runoff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And you have no idea what you are talking about.

Niether do you if you think a tree canopy is absorbing storm water. The little four foot rings at the tree base don't do anything to manage runoff.

Builders are not clearcutting heritage trees in the tree boxes. The issue is the trees on the property itself, either front or back yard. And yes, those heritage trees are absorbing runoff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Is this a troll post? If so, it’s top level. I like how you assume racism is at play. You forgot to include centering, intersectionality and other academic jargon to complete your bingo board.

Found the defensive white dude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And you have no idea what you are talking about.

Niether do you if you think a tree canopy is absorbing storm water. The little four foot rings at the tree base don't do anything to manage runoff.

Builders are not clearcutting heritage trees in the tree boxes. The issue is the trees on the property itself, either front or back yard. And yes, those heritage trees are absorbing runoff.

Ah, the government is telling you how to use your property. Do you get a tax rebate on the property you can't use or do you pay tax on their tree?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Is this a troll post? If so, it’s top level. I like how you assume racism is at play. You forgot to include centering, intersectionality and other academic jargon to complete your bingo board.

Found the defensive white dude.

Found the intellectually lazy response. Keep throwing out those racism darts at everything you don’t like. It works really well! Even if it has no bearing on the conversation!

Flagged and reported for racism. Grow up.