Anonymous
Post 02/08/2022 10:44     Subject: Developers in D.C. are free to cut down "protected" trees
Anonymous wrote:A tree in a city full of trees is not important enough to justify not building/remodeling a home. It’s just not.

Trees aren’t rare. Ever fly over DC? It looks like a forest. There are thousands of “hundred year old trees” in DC.

Cut it down. Build. Plant another when construction is finished.



This.

Seriously fk one tree. I have been through this exact issue in dc. It’s expensive as fk. Border tree wirh neighbor. Oh man let me tell you the quickest way to make enemies and drive up a budget. Peoples livelihoods are on the line sometimes with this. Maybe planting an extra tree outside the city is a good way to fix this. If you haven’t been through it you have no clue and whatever you say is based on ignorance.
Anonymous
Post 02/08/2022 10:35     Subject: Re:Developers in D.C. are free to cut down "protected" trees
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.

You cannot do construction, particularly the foundation work for the building you propose with trees and particularly tree roots in the way on a small DC lot. It’s not feasible.
Anonymous
Post 02/08/2022 10:33     Subject: Developers in D.C. are free to cut down "protected" trees
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:A tree in a city full of trees is not important enough to justify not building/remodeling a home. It’s just not.

Trees aren’t rare. Ever fly over DC? It looks like a forest. There are thousands of “hundred year old trees” in DC.

Cut it down. Build. Plant another when construction is finished.




I'd rather have more trees.

What's the point of adding more housing? We already live in one of the most densely populated cities in the country. These politicians who say we can create affordable housing by building more are lying to you. How is that supposed to happen, precisely? There are approximately 350,000 housing units in the city. Bowser would like to add 30,000. She'll be lucky if she gets half that. What is that going to accomplish? That's like saying you're fighting climate change by doing a better job recycling your Coke cans.

The number of housing units people want to add are far, far too small to make any difference, especially in an area where people are moving into the city and out of the suburbs. We have 5 million people in the suburbs. You don't think 0.3 percent (15,000 divided by 5 million) of them would rather live in the city? I guess you could go buy their old place in Manassas.


More trees?

We’re already AT tree saturation. Where would more trees go? There’s only so much room. And it’s already occupied with existing trees.

What causes DC urban heat island effect?
Anonymous
Post 02/08/2022 09:23     Subject: Developers in D.C. are free to cut down "protected" trees
Anonymous wrote:Trees grow back. It’s not like they’re an endangered species.


Learn something about the difference between a young tree and an old tree. They are not the same thing at all. They don't have the same effect on the environment, they don't even give off the same chemical signals. The law doesn't protect old trees because some people think they look nice -- there are real environmental reasons.
Anonymous
Post 02/08/2022 09:20     Subject: Re:Developers in D.C. are free to cut down "protected" trees
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.
Anonymous
Post 02/08/2022 08:26     Subject: Developers in D.C. are free to cut down "protected" trees
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:A tree in a city full of trees is not important enough to justify not building/remodeling a home. It’s just not.

Trees aren’t rare. Ever fly over DC? It looks like a forest. There are thousands of “hundred year old trees” in DC.

Cut it down. Build. Plant another when construction is finished.




I'd rather have more trees.

What's the point of adding more housing? We already live in one of the most densely populated cities in the country. These politicians who say we can create affordable housing by building more are lying to you. How is that supposed to happen, precisely? There are approximately 350,000 housing units in the city. Bowser would like to add 30,000. She'll be lucky if she gets half that. What is that going to accomplish? That's like saying you're fighting climate change by doing a better job recycling your Coke cans.

The number of housing units people want to add are far, far too small to make any difference, especially in an area where people are moving into the city and out of the suburbs. We have 5 million people in the suburbs. You don't think 0.3 percent (15,000 divided by 5 million) of them would rather live in the city? I guess you could go buy their old place in Manassas.


More trees?

We’re already AT tree saturation. Where would more trees go? There’s only so much room. And it’s already occupied with existing trees.
Anonymous
Post 02/06/2022 10:41     Subject: Developers in D.C. are free to cut down "protected" trees
Anonymous wrote:A tree in a city full of trees is not important enough to justify not building/remodeling a home. It’s just not.

Trees aren’t rare. Ever fly over DC? It looks like a forest. There are thousands of “hundred year old trees” in DC.

Cut it down. Build. Plant another when construction is finished.




I'd rather have more trees.

What's the point of adding more housing? We already live in one of the most densely populated cities in the country. These politicians who say we can create affordable housing by building more are lying to you. How is that supposed to happen, precisely? There are approximately 350,000 housing units in the city. Bowser would like to add 30,000. She'll be lucky if she gets half that. What is that going to accomplish? That's like saying you're fighting climate change by doing a better job recycling your Coke cans.

The number of housing units people want to add are far, far too small to make any difference, especially in an area where people are moving into the city and out of the suburbs. We have 5 million people in the suburbs. You don't think 0.3 percent (15,000 divided by 5 million) of them would rather live in the city? I guess you could go buy their old place in Manassas.
Anonymous
Post 02/05/2022 12:43     Subject: Developers in D.C. are free to cut down "protected" trees
A tree in a city full of trees is not important enough to justify not building/remodeling a home. It’s just not.

Trees aren’t rare. Ever fly over DC? It looks like a forest. There are thousands of “hundred year old trees” in DC.

Cut it down. Build. Plant another when construction is finished.

Anonymous
Post 02/04/2022 20:41     Subject: Developers in D.C. are free to cut down "protected" trees
I vote for jail time.
Anonymous
Post 02/04/2022 16:48     Subject: Re:Developers in D.C. are free to cut down "protected" trees
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.
Anonymous
Post 02/04/2022 15:42     Subject: Re:Developers in D.C. are free to cut down "protected" trees
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.
Anonymous
Post 02/04/2022 15:36     Subject: Developers in D.C. are free to cut down "protected" trees
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Trees grow back. It’s not like they’re an endangered species.



Oh look Donald Trump is here


Trees are a renewable resource, dummy.

Do you understand why that’s important?


You're really quite ignorant. You can't quickly replace mature trees.
Anonymous
Post 02/04/2022 14:28     Subject: Developers in D.C. are free to cut down "protected" trees
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The fines for cutting down even supposedly protected trees, like 100 year old oaks, are so paltry that developers treat them as the cost of doing business. They make up the cost in rising housing prices.

It is embarrassing how developers in D.C. can do basically anything they want.

https://dcist.com/story/22/02/03/developer-cuts-heritage-tree-takoma/



This story is really shocking.



I can't believe people go around poisoning trees.
Anonymous
Post 02/04/2022 14:25     Subject: Developers in D.C. are free to cut down "protected" trees
Anonymous wrote:Keep the fines and then mandate that developers every tree removed with 2 or 3 plantings. If the new development cannot support the new plantings then the developer will plant the new trees at a site of the city’s choosing.
Done.


Make the fines so large they can't be passed onto buyers in the form of higher housing prices. Start the fines at a half-million dollars per tree.

Done.
Anonymous
Post 02/04/2022 14:21     Subject: Developers in D.C. are free to cut down "protected" trees
Anonymous wrote:The fines for cutting down even supposedly protected trees, like 100 year old oaks, are so paltry that developers treat them as the cost of doing business. They make up the cost in rising housing prices.

It is embarrassing how developers in D.C. can do basically anything they want.

https://dcist.com/story/22/02/03/developer-cuts-heritage-tree-takoma/



This story is really shocking.