U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Virginia > Northern Virginia
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Who deserves most of the blame for falling trees?
Tree Hugging Homeowner 5 50.00%
Power Company 3 30.00%
The County 4 40.00%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 10. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-17-2010, 07:12 PM
 
106 posts, read 84,077 times
Reputation: 27

Advertisements

I'm from the school of thought that people who grow large shade trees on their property need to take care of their trees so that it decreases the likelihood that they will fall on power lines, homes, cars, people, etc. during violent storms.

In fact, I read somewhere that the WMA has the third largest tree canopy coverage, behind Portland and Seattle.

All I see on TV is blame for the power companies, although I do think they need to hasten their response to power outages.

I know many people have been screaming for buried power lines, but wait until they start getting taxed up the yin yang to pay for all that and you'll hear them cry again. Buried power lines don't prevent trees from falling on homes either.

Who deserves more blame, the tree hugging homeowner or the power company or the county?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-17-2010, 09:34 PM
 
37 posts, read 69,370 times
Reputation: 17
Homeowner
We spent $5K to cut our big trees 2 yrs ago. Every home in my area also cut down their big trees.
Now we don’t have any power outages at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2010, 07:54 AM
 
518 posts, read 784,242 times
Reputation: 447
The most responsibility is on the Power Company. They are responsible for making sure that we can receive uninterrupted power which includes keeping the lines clear of branches. The home owners are a close second, since they are responsible removing dead or dying trees from their property.

Calling home-owners tree huggers just because they like the shade from the trees on their property is rather biased.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2010, 08:18 AM
 
Location: Censorshipville...
2,710 posts, read 6,260,466 times
Reputation: 1579
Why is there no option for "Mother Nature", since she's responsible for the storm. Or what about "Act of God/Allah/Shiva/etc."

We have buried power lines in my neighborhood, but there is a HUGE pine tree in the front yard. It's actually 50/50 between my yard and my neighbor. I'd love to get it cut down, but my neighbor can't put up the money to get it done and I don't want to have to pay for it all myself. It's quite large and I know it's going to cost a pretty penny to bring down.

Main reason we want it down is that it's too dang big and I don't want it falling on my house. During the big snowfall a huge branch broke off and almost sqaushed my brother while he was shoveling the sidewalk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2010, 09:41 AM
 
Location: Silver Spring,Maryland
884 posts, read 2,364,536 times
Reputation: 630
ALL of the above.

I have 2 big trees I want removed because I can see them falling one day if we get another bad storm.

However, weather is unpredictable. Having trees in the yard is nice for shade and we homeowners don't WANT the trees to fall.

BUT!! I am in MD and I think Pepco blows. I notice that even if I were to remove the trees from my yard it won't prevent an outage because there are a lot of trees on the county property and on main roads. These trees are not trimmed away from the power lines at all. They don't seem to do that here but they did back in my old hometown. I shouldn't have 24 hour outages and then no credit is offered for spoiled food or lost conveniences.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2010, 12:02 PM
 
Location: New-Dentist Colony
5,740 posts, read 8,967,707 times
Reputation: 3858
Wow. So much tree hating here! I realize that if they are truly overgrown and risk falling, that's a hazard--in which case some pruning is warranted. And sometimes an entire tree is diseased and unfortunately has to go.

But if you get rid of all the trees in your neighborhood, you've just lowered your property values. In our just-concluded house search, we passed up entire neighborhoods because they had no trees--and I know we're not the only buyers to do so. We love the shade, the sense of longtime affluence, the sheer beauty of big trees. Treeless streets are so barren, so sun-baked.

In contrast, go to N. Arlington (22207) and take a look at the Larchmont area of Tara Leeway, just north of Washington Boulevard. Or Ashton Heights. Or Waverly Hills/Cherrydale/Maywood/Lyon Village. Or Arlington Ridge in South Arlington. Or much of Bethesda and NW DC--e.g., Palisades, Am. U Park, etc. Gorgeous old homes, gorgeous old trees.

I'm not saying no one should ever remove a tree. I'm just saying I hope people will not do so wantonly or out of exaggerated fears of falling branches.

(The worst offenders, btw, are the developers, who all seem to want a "clean slate" when building new homes.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2010, 12:11 PM
 
Location: In the woods
3,315 posts, read 8,794,328 times
Reputation: 1510
Responsibility for the tree should be on whoever owns the land it sits on. IOW, if it's on private property, then it's the owner's responsibility. Same for an empty lot full of giant trees. If it's on a curb area that's public property, then it's the city/town/county's responsibility.

I grew up in a former lumber mill town that still has massive trees on people's lots. These old trees are bigger than the ones I've seen here. The tree-cutting service there is constantly busy as homeowners maintain the large trees by either lopping off the tops, cutting away excessive limbs, or taking down parts of or the whole tree because the inside can be rotted/dead while the outside may appear fine. It's constant vigilance and maintenance on these trees. And sometimes there's so much wood from the cut trees that the owner's give away free firewood.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2010, 02:50 PM
 
Location: Polish Hill, Pittsburgh, PA
30,178 posts, read 67,314,530 times
Reputation: 15823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlingtonian View Post
But if you get rid of all the trees in your neighborhood, you've just lowered your property values. In our just-concluded house search, we passed up entire neighborhoods because they had no trees--and I know we're not the only buyers to do so. We love the shade, the sense of longtime affluence, the sheer beauty of big trees. Treeless streets are so barren, so sun-baked.
(Raises hand). I'm the same exact way. I've been looking at cheap small older homes with some character that are "diamonds in the rough" in both Winchester and Prince George's County, and I refuse to consider any neighborhood devoid of shade trees. I happen to think one of the most gorgeous neighborhoods in the entire metropolitan area is in and around the intersection of Arizona Avenue NW @ Loughboro Road NW (which turns into Nebraska Avenue NW) in what I believe is the Spring Valley area of the District. As you turn right from Arizona onto Loughboro you're immediately struck by the awesome sight of massive old trees sheltering you like a tunnel; it is a gorgeous community. Part of the reason I tolerate Reston is due to its intensive tree canopy. I would die in a place like Ashburn where people clear-cut all of their trees so they can stare at grass.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2010, 03:04 PM
 
10,606 posts, read 12,128,397 times
Reputation: 6498
Part of the problem with Pepco really isn't Pepco's fault. Both DC and Montgomery County have these HUGE, old trees. Beautiful yes, but very problematic. Whenever you see news coverage after a storm, there are just these massive trees that have fallen and created the problem.

While I'm all for keeping trees and sustaining the beauty of nature, at some point, these old trees have become hazardous in populated areas.

The answer is to severely trim them or remove them. If you don't want to do that, then you can't really keep screaming at Pepco.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2010, 03:21 PM
 
106 posts, read 84,077 times
Reputation: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlingtonian View Post
Wow. So much tree hating here! I realize that if they are truly overgrown and risk falling, that's a hazard--in which case some pruning is warranted. And sometimes an entire tree is diseased and unfortunately has to go.

But if you get rid of all the trees in your neighborhood, you've just lowered your property values. In our just-concluded house search, we passed up entire neighborhoods because they had no trees--and I know we're not the only buyers to do so. We love the shade, the sense of longtime affluence, the sheer beauty of big trees. Treeless streets are so barren, so sun-baked.

In contrast, go to N. Arlington (22207) and take a look at the Larchmont area of Tara Leeway, just north of Washington Boulevard. Or Ashton Heights. Or Waverly Hills/Cherrydale/Maywood/Lyon Village. Or Arlington Ridge in South Arlington. Or much of Bethesda and NW DC--e.g., Palisades, Am. U Park, etc. Gorgeous old homes, gorgeous old trees.

I'm not saying no one should ever remove a tree. I'm just saying I hope people will not do so wantonly or out of exaggerated fears of falling branches.

(The worst offenders, btw, are the developers, who all seem to want a "clean slate" when building new homes.)
It's not tree hating. Large shade trees belong on large properties where they can fall and not damage homes, power lines, etc.

Better options include smaller trees like redbuds, bloodgood japanese maples, etc.

Not good are large oaks and large maples and large pines.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Virginia > Northern Virginia
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top