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.
Smaller lots often will not support grand multigenerational trees.
So, junk and ornamentals are replanted.
The Bradford Pear infestation in newer subdivisions or Leyland Cyress use are both lamentable.
Or, trees are used that have to be removed before they fully mature because they crowd houses. Or, because they crowd each other.
I see B&B trees planted within 15' of houses, and I know they will be removed in 20-30 years because they are misused.
Trees with broad canopies, 15-20' from houses are ridiculous. Pyramidal trees often would be more appropriate, but too often are not used.
A long-term nice tree canopy depends on appropriate reforestation.
Just because the settlers in the 1800s cut down the forests in what is now the Raleigh area and the currently forested areas are not virgin does not mean we should not try to protect a portion of the remaining second growth forest today.
Lets say you were buying a house in a fast growing Raleigh suburb like Holly Springs, Apex or Wake Forest. As you drive to the location of your new neighborhood you see hundreds of acres of forested land- it is beautiful- and this greenery is one of the reasons you picked that neighborhood and community for your new home. You move into your new home and over the next ten years basically every forested area that you admired that gave the community it's woodsy feel was clearcut for cookie cutter homes, would your quality of life in your community be as good?
In planned communities, the leaders know a certain number of trees need to be cut down as the area grows for housing and commerical use. But they also know that if a proactive community buys up land to be kept in it's natural state the area will remain beautiful and it will improve the quality of life. Trouble is when the woods are saved they are not getting any proterty tax revenue from that land (which could have been homes, a Taco Bell or a Shooping Center.) and the community had to buy the land from an owner to save it from development which someone has to pay for via higher property taxes or homeowner association dues. Community maps and newsletters would tell residents which open spaces were protected and which ones will eventually be turned into homes or commerical spaces, so people know what to expect. I say it is a win win for everyone.
Lets say you were buying a house in a fast growing Raleigh suburb like Holly Springs, Apex or Wake Forest. As you drive to the location of your new neighborhood you see hundreds of acres of forested land- it is beautiful- and this greenery is one of the reasons you picked that neighborhood and community for your new home. You move into your new home and over the next ten years basically every forested area that you admired that gave the community it's woodsy feel was clearcut for cookie cutter homes, would your quality of life in your community be as good?
So it was all good to clear cut for your neighborhood but not any others?
Sounds to me like this person didn’t do their research.
Just because the settlers in the 1800s cut down the forests in what is now the Raleigh area and the currently forested areas are not virgin does not mean we should not try to protect a portion of the remaining second growth forest today.
Lets say you were buying a house in a fast growing Raleigh suburb like Holly Springs, Apex or Wake Forest. As you drive to the location of your new neighborhood you see hundreds of acres of forested land- it is beautiful- and this greenery is one of the reasons you picked that neighborhood and community for your new home. You move into your new home and over the next ten years basically every forested area that you admired that gave the community it's woodsy feel was clearcut for cookie cutter homes, would your quality of life in your community be as good?
In planned communities, the leaders know a certain number of trees need to be cut down as the area grows for housing and commerical use. But they also know that if a proactive community buys up land to be kept in it's natural state the area will remain beautiful and it will improve the quality of life. Trouble is when the woods are saved they are not getting any proterty tax revenue from that land (which could have been homes, a Taco Bell or a Shooping Center.) and the community had to buy the land from an owner to save it from development which someone has to pay for via higher property taxes or homeowner association dues. Community maps and newsletters would tell residents which open spaces were protected and which ones will eventually be turned into homes or commerical spaces, so people know what to expect. I say it is a win win for everyone.
1. Every new development protects some of the trees. Many protect a large portion of the trees.
2. There is very little "second growth" forest. Timber is renewable and is harvested repeatedly.
3. Scrub, junk, and unhealthy trees comprise a great deal of unmanaged removed forest.
4. Stream buffers, open space requirements, and even some esthetic standards protect many trees.
5. Parks. We have new parks every year. Many trees are preserved and managed. Go to a park. See trees!
6. The Triangle region has doubled in population in less than a generation, and that growth will continue.
They won't all live in high-rise condos to save trees.
7. Be a part of the solution:
Plant trees!
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.