Anonymous wrote:id rather have more trees than houses
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.
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.
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.
Anonymous wrote:I have lived in a neighborhood with the tree obsessed and they can get quite ridiculous.
A lot of time trees may appear beautiful and healthy from the outsides but inside they have fungus or are rotting. This harms of the integrity of the tree and a bad storm could bring down the tree or it's even possible that it just reaches a point and breaks. off a limb from disease inside.
Despite having certified arbor professionals talk to the neighborhood about this, people would still insist that the tree should be saved even when the professional would say the tree is dying, it is a hazard, the fungus or bugs can infect other healthy trees. It was crazy.
Anonymous wrote:I have lived in a neighborhood with the tree obsessed and they can get quite ridiculous.
A lot of time trees may appear beautiful and healthy from the outsides but inside they have fungus or are rotting. This harms of the integrity of the tree and a bad storm could bring down the tree or it's even possible that it just reaches a point and breaks. off a limb from disease inside.
Despite having certified arbor professionals talk to the neighborhood about this, people would still insist that the tree should be saved even when the professional would say the tree is dying, it is a hazard, the fungus or bugs can infect other healthy trees. It was crazy.
Anonymous wrote:The trees help absorb all the water DC gets from storms. The more trees that are removed, the more flooding will occur. It's basically a negative externality that you impose on your neighbors when you remove an otherwise healthy, large tree.
Of course, if the tree is dying or a danger to others, it needs to be removed. Old trees need to safely come down when they reach their end point and especially if they start dropping large branches. But there's a process to do that legally.
But most people taking down large, old trees in DC just want to develop more of their property.