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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:id rather have more trees than houses

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.