Be careful what you wish for,,,
Our neighbor’s tiny (20×30) trash-filled yard had one saving grace…4 tall (40+ ft) trees which gave our deck a tree-house feel. But many’s the time I cursed (prematurely) the trees’ squishy black cherry droppings as I cleaned ’em up. One tree fell a week ago in a heavy wind. Stayed so for 5 days. Yesterday…
Our neighbor’s tiny (20×30) trash-filled yard had one saving grace…4 tall (40+ ft) trees which gave our deck a tree-house feel. But many’s the time I cursed (prematurely) the trees’ squishy black cherry droppings as I cleaned ’em up.
One tree fell a week ago in a heavy wind. Stayed so for 5 days. Yesterday evening all 4 trees have disappered.
Makes me wish there was a landmarking for trees. Maybe you should be forced to get a permit and petition the neighbors before chopping trees.
Ah, I forgot…the God of private property prevails.
Well, there’s more light for our plants now…
Ah, right, 7:30. Which is why I said “even if they can only be sidewalk trees”. So it turns out you need to read the entire post too, not just the entire thread more carefully.
Taking out a tree is a bother and expensive. The only reason I can think of that one would do it is not to fill one’s yard with more trash, but because the tree was sick or dying or otherwise a hazard.
Count your blessings–at least they didn’t just let the tree fall on your house in a year or two.
I’m 11:33. This thread was about trees on private property, not on a public street. The City does not pay to maintain trees on private property.
Maybe you should read the whole thread.
I’m 3:34 and I would agree, 11:33. I think that’s what the OP said by saying the city should take part in maintenance of the trees. The city is funded by all of us, the tax payers.
I don’t think I’m missing any points at all.
I was responding to what 12:22 said, if that’s what confused you. You need to read the whole thread.
Thanks, 3:34.
1:33: if you don’t think our taxes go to providing communal benefits (think streets) you’ve been reading too much Ayn Rand.
While my petition-the-neighbors comment was meant to be over-the-top, the principle should prevail. And if you (collectively) can be outraged over the color of a front door’s paint, bad brick, Fedders a/cs, light bamboo flooring, all of which are a hell of a lot more personal choices, shouldn’t you be equally outraged over the killing of healthy trees?
I think 3:34 is missing the point. If trees provide a communal benefit, then the community should pay for it. The homeowner may have kept his trees if the neighbors helped pay to maintain them. Afterall these neighbors are getting a benefit.
The air is communal. And the trees clean the air. In a city filled with pollution no less. Noise pollution is communal. Trees help absorb noise. The city of NYC absolutely should have a minimum number of trees in every neighborhood they protect, even if they can only be sidewalk trees. Because SOME private property owners are too shortsighted and uninformed to have even one tree on their property.
A huge part of the appeal of Brooklyn is its leafy green streets! Well maybe 12:22 lives in some tacky part of Brooklyn like Dyker Heights where people prefer concrete yards over trees.
You sound like a dirty, Che guavera t shirt wearing pinko . A petition from the neighbors? Are you f-ing kidding? Are you paying the taxes on the dirt those trees grow in? do you pay to maintain them?
Those trees are private property, not communal. if you dont like it, look the other way
You can plant a tree or trees yourself. It is likely that your neighbor not only filled his yard with trash, but didn’t maintain the trees. Trees need maintenance — but you can plant your own trees. Do a little research on types and before long you will have your own — hopefully more stable — leafy paradise.