Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:im a small developer in N. Va. Believe me, we try to save as many mature trees as possible because having mature trees on a lot commands a higher sales close price. We also get credit from the County to keep as many good trees on the property as possible...for every mature tree we remove, the County requires us to plant an equivalent number of trees to compensate to achieve a long term tree "canopy" area. So.....we have a financial advantage NOT to remove trees, contrary to what most may think. For many homes with septic systems, trees MUST be remove in the primary drainfield area and we cannot leave any tree up withing a good 20-35 feet of any component of the septic system. This is a County requirement to protect the homeowner from having sewage issues. It it certainly much easier to not have trees with construction/development but we are well aware there are advantages to doing our best to keep them as well. I will add that most mature trees, no matter how hard you try to protect them during construction, will die withing 4-5 years after the homeowner moves in. The stress, change in environment, water drainage patterns, sun angles, etc are often too much for a tree to survive. This is unfortuante for a homeowner who purchases a property with mature tree(s), later loses the tree(s), and then has to pay thousands of dollars to remove and re-landscape. I see it all the time.

How closw are the trees to the house that you are talking about that die within 4-5 years? We have 20-30 mature trees that have been fine since the house was built in the early 80s, which are 20-40 feet from the house.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well I mean I know why they prefer it, to make construction easier, but why do owners buyin tear-downs ask them to do this and why do people buying new houses buy them when the lots have been cleared? They look horrible. As many mature trees as possible should be left. I've been watching a new house buying built off old dominion right past balls hill road and the builders cut every single tree off the lot before they started building. Insane!

I hate to break it to the tree huggers, but simply put, trees are a risk. I live in a neighborhood with plenty of "mature trees" and I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a house where branches are over the house. If you've been in this area for any period of time you've undoubtedly seen houses get smashed like twigs from a large tree or branches falling down. Let's see, you're going to spend $600k building a house and not remove a tree that's too close to your house? That's called dumb. I like big trees, I just think they have no place close to the house. Unfortunately these days lot sizes keep shrinking and houses get larger so there's a lack of space for big/nice trees. It is what it is..

Someone is willing to spend 600k on the house that can possibly be smashed like a twig by a tree branch. By a tree, yes, by by the branch? Sounds like a " the three little pigs" type construction quality lol:

It takes decades to grow a mature tree, it's ridiculous how people cut them down without second thought. Leaning, unhealthy - sure, but healthy 70-100+ years beauties?? In my book it's a crime. I hope it's not the same people who complaint about air quality, noise, and, ultimately, climate changelol:

Currently I am pretty tense with my neighbor who bought her house two years ago, and did not notice two poplar tulips planted on my front lawn in 1948 (I am not joking). Lots are not that huge, you can't help by notice large trees on almost every lawn. Nor did she notice two oaks planted the same year on her next door neighbors' lawn. She wants them down, too, or I and the oak trees owner should be cleaning "our mess" off her lawn (leafs, branches, etc.). I installed cameras pointed at trees, because I question her sanity, and someone suggested to me to nominate my trees as a landmark trees, and I will do it in April. So will my neighbor.
Just a tip for people in the same situation.

Wtf? Tell her to "fuck off." Please use those exact words. She has no right to tell you to remove trees fro YOUR yard.

Thank you for advice, I would love to say that right in her face, but I can't. When she first moved in and trees problem did not escalate yet, we chatted occasionally, and she told me a story about her sister, who had a conflict with her neighbor. She suggested to her sister to poison her neighbor's dog "she will get the message, but will be unable to prove who did it". if she openly talks about such an evil thing, she is capable of doing it herself. I have two dogs, I am scared for them. So I just smile and wave when I see her. I can't risk my boys' life.

Jesus where the hell do you live? I'd let your neighbor know that you have guns and will defend your dogs with lethal force if need be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The tree huggers need to chill out. Check the link below, there is more tree coverage in the US now than there was 100 years ago. We aren't short on trees.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/more-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true

These are juvenile forests. It will take hundreds of years of growth WITHOUT CUTTING to restore the ancient forests. Old trees must not be cut if they will reach maturity. A mature first is ~400 years old. We are robbing our descendants of ancient forests just as the European settlers robbed us of them when they started clear cutting in the 1700s.

Anonymous wrote:We lived on a street in Kensington in 1990 (+/-) lined with 60 year old beautiful maple trees (guess that age because of age of houses) and there was a tornado that knocked over 75% of them, several into second floor of homes. Luckily - storm came at 5PM and people weren't in their beds (my best friend across street bedroom took a direct hit.) I love trees but I have no problem with removing big ones too close to the home, in fact, once I get the dang $10,000 it will cost us I will be removing 3 massive Silver Maples all within 10 feet of my house. There is a reason there is something called 'street trees': our close by homes aren't set up for 75' trees towering over our houses especially in the increasingly violent storms we're getting. I am happy to plant trees 50 feet away and wish the city/suburbs would plant more big trees where there is the space and less ornamentals but I won't judge being afraid of trees falling on houses

Anonymous wrote:We built our forever home on 12 acres. It is in part of the country where we pay more than lip service to environmental issues. We had to remove a few trees of course. It is forest. But we worked closely with an arborist, chose a site that would have the least impact on the environment (including felling trees), and built with as little impact to the nature around us as possible. We are surrounded by huge, old trees. They provide shade, homes for wildlife, protect the soil, some provide food, ...and they are beautiful.

Y'all can have your bare lots and chemical laden yards. Just don't act like you care about the environment.

Anonymous wrote:The tree huggers need to chill out. Check the link below, there is more tree coverage in the US now than there was 100 years ago. We aren't short on trees.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/more-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true

Anonymous wrote:And most of those 100 are professional tree trimmers.