100 yr. old hardwoods clearcut (Raleigh, Wake Forest: sales, big house, neighborhoods)

[toodie]

Read this today in the North Raleigh News and was so dismayed.

It appears that according to the city, when land is developed, only 10 percent of trees must be saved. And it doesn't matter whether they're 100-year-old hardwoods or 10-year-old whatever they are, or whether they're in view of a major highway, walkway, or hidden on land that's not in view at all.

So poor planning. It's a shame. The City of Oaks, torn down.

City OKs Cheviot Hills clearing - News - North Raleigh News (http://www.northraleighnews.com/news/story/461.html - broken link)

"On a piece of property that large, 10 percent of the property preserved in trees is not going to look like much tree preservation is being done," Gilliam said.
Public reaction to the cutting has been critical.
"I was shocked to see what appears to be the clear-cutting of trees on the site of the former Cheviot Hills Golf Course," Tony Aiello of Wake Forest wrote in a recent e-mail to The News & Observer.
"Although it will be impossible to replace the 100+ year-old hardwoods, one would hope the new owners will have an extensive landscape plan. The current Tree Ordinance requires only 10 percent of trees to be left standing. We should do better."

best,
toodie

[TraumanurseNC]

That is very sad....

[North_Raleigh_Guy]

I understand what you are saying, but if Raleigh tried to strengthen the ordinance and require more trees to be saved the public outcry from landowners about property rights would be swift and fierce. The planning commission does not operate in a vacuum and they have to take the public's concerns into consideration. Property owners have a loud voice. I am more critical of the property owner and not the city itself since there is nothing preventing the owner from preserving more trees than the required minimum.

[Bilirubin]

So what would your solution be?

[dansdrive]

Originally Posted by Bilirubin

So what would your solution be?

One solution could be that the developers are REQUIRED to plant the equivalent number of tree(s) years they are removing. In simple math terms. 100 year old tree replaced with 20 5 year old trees! That should be part of the site plan before approval.

Keep it simple. Younger smaller trees take up less room and should be able to be accommodated within the developed property.

Hate to see any tree cut down but that is progress and if the wood is being put to good use than all the better.

Still reeling over all the mature trees they cut down on the corner of Fall of Neuse and Durant for yet another Pharmacy - water wings-outdoor furniture-every week sales circular place. IMHO that was not a good trade for the large number of trees they ripped out and destroyed! I will hold back and not say how I really feel about that project!

[j7r6s]

The sad fact of the matter is that the trees greatly reduce the value of the land. What would a lot in Wakefield go for? With the big house, no yard type neighborhoods, a developer could likely put 1500+ homes on 191 acres of land. Leaving a couple of trees might "ruin" a $50k 0.10 acre home lot.

[skaternum]

So why do you think some of us are grousing about how poorly this place has handled growth? Part of what bothers us is that we're losing the very things that make this place so wonderful, including all those gorgeous stands of oxygen-producing hardwoods. <sigh>

[zinner]

That could make me some nice furniture.

[CHTransplant]

Originally Posted by skaternum

Part of what bothers us is that we're losing the very things that make this place so wonderful, including all those gorgeous stands of oxygen-producing hardwoods. <sigh>

You wanna save all those pollution-producing trees? Egads, man, what about the environment??!

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." - Ronald Reagan, 1981
"A tree is a tree. How many more do you have to look at?" - Ronald Reagan, 1966

[skaternum]

LOL, CHTransplant.