Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Like it or not, here they come


From CBS New York:

Your neighborhood might be getting greener as the city continues its program to plant 1 million trees.

But as CBS 2′s Maurice DuBois reported, some homeowners don’t want the trees, and despite their objections the city plants them anyway.

Assemblyman Phil Goldfeder said the Parks Department should consult first with homeowners, and he has a bill the would require them to do so.

“For any agency to dictate is just wrong,” he said. “This is a no-brainer. The Parks Department should want to engage the community.”

On Tuesday, Mayor Bill de Blasio stopped short of endorsing the legislation.

“I want to see the bill before I comment, but I certainly want to make sure we’re doing everything that we can do to communicate with homeowners,” the mayor said.

32 comments:

We're Queens - We Can't Have Anything Nice said...

More like Kill a Million Trees.

Some people in Queens like to kill the trees by putting salt at the base.

Anonymous said...

Street Trees are planted on public property, not the homeowner's. Folks who want control over whether street trees get planted are probably the ones who labor under the erroneous belief that the parking spot in front of their property is theirs to control, too.

Anonymous said...

Many of the trees being planted are not native to the area and they are awful.

Give me a London Plane, an oak, an ash, a maple...

J said...

there are thousands of trees right now that look like they should be chopped down.Everyday I am seeing huge branches on the streets.The ones still standing have no bark on them.

the arrogant behavior of city officials under mayor fun size has not ended and its continuing under mayor 0 vision.It's stupid that you have to get arrested to prove a point and to have a sidewalk removed of cracks to avoid fines only to have it torn up for a tree that doesn't even look natural for the area.

I am sure the sierra club would not approve of these bonehead tactics.

And again,NYPD get your shit together,arresting law abiding citizens and elderly people because they disagree with city hall?Can't you think for yourselves?

Anonymous said...

We can't stop the city from planting the trees but we should give the homeowner a choice of what tree will be planted in front of their home.

Joe in Richmond Hill said...

Why not plant some of these new trees on public property. Like the wide center islands on Atlantic Avenue between 121 street and Rockaway Blvd. That's a heat island waiting to be cooled.

Anonymous said...

Huh? What idiots don't want trees? Pakis? Asians? Has everyone completely lost it? Since when is planting trees an act of government over-reach or tyranny? You people are nuts.

Anonymous said...

"Me no like tree. Too much clean"

Anonymous said...

People who don't like trees on their property are simply too lazy or too cheap to deal with the leaves in Autumn. If you don't like trees, don't choose to live in a house located within a residential area - live in an industrial area or in a massive apartment complex instead.

Will Deegan said...

"Anonymous said...

Huh? What idiots don't want trees? Pakis? Asians? Has everyone completely lost it? Since when is planting trees an act of government over-reach or tyranny? You people are nuts."

The same people who initially spread salt on the roots of their street trees or cut a bark ring around the trunk are probably the ones complaining.

Anonymous said...

Oh man. Fucking trees! They fall over and hit your car. You have to rake their damn leaves. When will we rid ourselves of this scourge??? AS soon as we kill them the city plants them back!

Anonymous said...

Trees are not the most important thing the city should spend its budget on especially if so many people dont want them. But i know the parks department and arborist have a powerful lobby. without those trees many of them will be out of work.

Anonymous said...

People fail to realize the importance of trees. They provide shade and absorb CO2. With many parts of the city having high asthma rates due to pollution, the city should be planting more trees.

Anonymous said...

1) Atlantic Avenue is hollow underneath because the LIRR runs beneath.
2) The problems with trees planted in Queens is that within 2 years they run into the overhead wires, which the cable companies string up so low as to make a real eyesore and a real tree canopy impossible.

Cav said...


Let me play devil's advocate and set out a couple of points that may make homeowners not want a tree in front of their house:
Tree roots can start to crack or lift parts of the sidewalk the repair costs, in the thousands of dollars, are borne by the homeowner.

Tree roots can also break their way into sewer lines causing the lines to be blocked. Even if the line is under the sidewalk, the homeowner is again paying in the thousands to fix it.

I'm not trying stir the pot or to rile people up.
So maybe we should consider both sides of the issue rather than go off on rants about tree-hating asians or control freak homeowners.

Don Cavaioli

Queens Crapper said...

Homeowners of 1-3 family houses don't pay for broken sidewalks from tree damage.

Here's the link

Anonymous said...

Does the sidewalk free repair also apply to violations? My neighbor got a violation since the tree in front of her house raised the sidewalk and she received a bill to repair the side walk. I have also heard from other neighbors whose trees raised the sidewalk and that they were billed for repairs and they did not have violations. This contradicts the link that you posted.

Anonymous said...

first i would argue that many new yorkers suffer from allergies because of tree pollen. second i would argue that planting a million more trees in ny is NOT going to make much of a difference to oxygen levels in the air. Those trees are not needed or wanted. The reason for planting them is about giving certain people work.

Queens Crapper said...

Registering for the program exempts the homeowner from fines. I don't believe it works retroactively.

As for many NYers suffering from tree pollen, we suffer from flower and grass pollen as well. And dogs and cats. So should we pave everything over and ban pets in order to prevent allergies? Buy some Claritin.

Anonymous said...

I googled how much rainwater a tree can absorb, reducing runoffs and preventing basement flooding. It seems that, depending on its size, a tree can absorb up to a few thousand gallons of water a year!

Anonymous said...

Depending upon the location, the city is planting trees that may be drought resistant, salt tolerant, disease resistant, slower growing, less likely to heave sidewalks, have a smaller height when fully grown and are not a host to either the Asian long-horned beetle or the emerald ash borer.

Also the intention is not to plant too many of the same type of tree. Right now only about a dozen species of trees make up the majority of NYC street trees.

Many of the Norway maples (one of the most common and not a long-lived tree as trees go) are dying and not just from from old age. Some are succumbing to a fungus that is now present in the soil (and then there's that beetle).

There are a few people in my neighborhood who complain about having so many trees and I have to wonder why they live here. The trees are what attracted me as well as most of my neighbors to this area. The irony is that neighborhoods with few to no trees (in Queens at least) are frequently rundown and unsafe and the few tree haters in my neighborhood would never be willing to live there. They don't see how much trees improve their quality of life - even if only indirectly. Overall, trees are a big plus.

And happy trolling to you...

Anonymous said...

The more trees the better - I miss the mature trees that lined our streets. People don't like them - they can move to the desert.

Anonymous said...

I'm a tree advocate but I'm against having it forced on me when,

Though it's city property when it damages the sidewalk it's my problem, and when it damages a sewer or water connection to the house it's my problem.

Regarding the program where the city pays, conveniently only when they have money to do it. Violations resulting from damage from a city tree I have to rectify in 40 days, I can't cite lack of funding like the city can.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I understand. However, allowing homeowners to dictate whether or not a tree is going to be planted on city property wouldn't work because homes get sold/torn down. There's also zoning requirements that newly built homes must have trees in front of them.

Anonymous said...

The Parks Dept. planted trees a couple of years ago in Bayside on City property in front of some new homes. The trees died. They were called to remove the trees and the stumps.

The response was that they would come and take care of the matter. And, they would plant new trees.

Never happened. The homeowners had to remove the trees themselves.

If the City plants trees -- they need to maintain the trees. They can't handle the areas along the Cross Island that have hundreds of dead and fallen trees.

The weeds grow so tall as to look like big trees. They should spend money and time maintaining what already exists and is problematic.

The City needs to be run by a private corporation, perhaps.

Anonymous said...

i like how some people like to explain scientifically the justification of planting new trees. The realty is those million trees will make very little impact on air oxygen levels and flooding. The real impact of those trees is aesthetic which is why i believe homeowners should have a say in whether or not they get planted near their property.


Queens Crapper said...

The justification is that you won't have water in your basement. You really must be living in la-la land if you don't want to accept that.

End of story.

Here's more.

Anonymous said...

actually i live in Queens. and the flooding is due to the sewer infrastructure which is a DEP problem. you really shouldnt blame the flooding on the lack of trees. the parks department isnt smart enough to deal with flooding.

Queens Crapper said...

Oh brother, you really don't get it, do you?

There's flooding because people cut down their trees and paved over their yards and the water has nowhere to go. Yes, the sewer infrastructure needs to be upgraded since we are supersizing everything, but permeable surfaces and plant life helps decrease the burden on the sewers.

Anonymous said...

Yayy for trees!! If you don't like it move to Brooklyn or Manhattan. Sorry

Anonymous said...

you are confusing the issues of people paving over their yards with the parks department planting new trees. two separate things bud. and im sure more trees isnt going to solve peoples flooding issues. thats giving folks false hope.

Queens Crapper said...

No, I'm not confusing the two issues. Both regulations are in place for the same reason. If you don't want a tree in front of your house, look for a house where the sidewalk is narrow or there's a fire hydrant. A tree can absorb thousands of gallons of water that would otherwise end up in the sewer. A tree is a good thing, and having one in front of your house increases property value.