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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:id rather have more trees than houses

So you want poor people to suffer?

The poor do suffer from lack of trees. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2021/07/06/tree-the-critical-infrastructure-low-income-neighborhoods-lack

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Flagged for what? The previous poster, out of nowhere injected “ I'd bet he just doesn't like having a brown person move in next door.” Into the conversation. Is the bar for racism now inquiring why race was injected into throat tree thread? Or are you trolling again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If this is the first you've ever heard of the government telling you how you can and cannot use property, you're in for a wild ride.

[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.

Obviously a lot of people care! You do know that builders can use other materials other than a heritage tree? You sound very ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Obviously a lot of people care! You do know that builders can use other materials other than a heritage tree? You sound very ignorant.

Hi this isn’t 1821, no one is using a heritage tree to build a log cabin.

The real issue is that in modern times, builders can’t actually put in a basement or foundation because a heritage trees roots would prevent that in a lot
Of cases. This thread is filled with dimwits. Idiots who have never put their money on the line, been involved with permitting, arborists, fines, or millions of dollars in order to build a fking house that one stupid tree prevents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Obviously a lot of people care! You do know that builders can use other materials other than a heritage tree? You sound very ignorant.

Hi this isn’t 1821, no one is using a heritage tree to build a log cabin.

The real issue is that in modern times, builders can’t actually put in a basement or foundation because a heritage trees roots would prevent that in a lot
Of cases. This thread is filled with dimwits. Idiots who have never put their money on the line, been involved with permitting, arborists, fines, or millions of dollars in order to build a fking house that one stupid tree prevents.

Sounds like someone put their money on the line without being quite involved enough with permitting and arborists.

Here's the economic perspective: yes, tree preservation is effectively a tax on landowners, and it falls quite unevenly. However, real estate appreciation in DC has been so great in recent years that anyone who owns property has received a large windfall. The tree preservation "tax" captures some of that windfall. And it sucks to be someone who gets caught in it. But from a public policy perspective it doesn't affect the affordability or availability of housing, because those windfall profits don't create any incentives that change anyone's behavior. At the same time, tree preservation clearly creates public benefits. Those who have to pay for them may feel the benefits don't outweigh the costs, but of course they're going to feel that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If this is the first you've ever heard of the government telling you how you can and cannot use property, you're in for a wild ride.

It's a blue law. Essentially a nuisance because some government busybody wants their way regardless of how much sense it makes. You can cut down every other tree on your lot, and that would be perfectly fine. But trees over a certain size are magical. A reasonable regulation would be to require a certain percentage of canopy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:id rather have more trees than houses

This is already the case.

[Anonymous]

A house was built near us, much closer to the street than all the surrounding houses, so it sticks out like a sore thumb. Reason? A heritage tree in the back part of the newly subdivided lot. Zoning department dictated that it couldn't be cut down and told the builder to build the house 20 ft closer to the street than the houses on either side. Neighborhood in uproar.

Flash forward a few years, the tree died.

We're still stuck with this ugly jerry built McMansion.

[Anonymous]

Probably died because roots were cut to build the house.