The Tree Debate

[gs3]

The County Council (not city) continues to try to finalize a measure to save trees. Seems to be a pretty good amount of disagreement over this issue. As you can imagine, most builders are against the measure. Below is an article from GV News. The County Council meeting this comming Monday will be mostly devoted to this debate. Thoughts?

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs....NEWS01/71010040

[gs3]

Did anyone attend the council meeting Tuesday night about the tree ordinance? Short article here, but sounds like there may have been some heated debate. In this day and age, I still can't believe there are people who debate the importance of trees!! If for none other than selfish reasons, trees increase a homes property value!!!!

http://www.wyff4.com/news/14532340/detail.html

[whitehourseview]

It's not being for or against trees that is the hang up. Many new business and home sites want trees, eventually, on their property, but of course cut them down when they are built. That's nothing new, been going on for quite a while. Older pictures of the North Main area show that when that area was developed in a large way over 60 years ago, it was virtually clear up and many of today's trees were planted then.

At the moment, especially in a businesses that just don't have great margins due to lots of factors, like housing and retail construction, there just aren't a lot of incentives to work around trees and still be cost effective. And since the builder just wont' be around 15 years in the future for that site, their concern is the next year, not that far in advance.

A better route might be things like tax incentives or other such deals, to use a carrot rather than a stick, especially for erosion control and other evironmental issues.

Groups like Upstate Forever, which do good for local conservation efforts, can be accused of top down approaches to solving problems. Many home owners and builders feel that their business and property rights are being threatened, which are legitimate concerns.

If the government wants to get involved in this, again, a carrot approach, rather than a stick approach would be a better way to go.

[linkerjpatrick]

I agree to a point. I love trees but I often see a worse problem, especially in South Carolina when developers come in, not only take all the trees down strip off all the good soil leave that nasty red dirt that homeowner have to spend literally years to redevelop. If I can live in a neighborhood where they are a lot of shade trees I much prefer that however I don't want to be told what I can and can not be done with trees on my own property. Now if they encroach on my neighbors property or effect drainage, etc. done the line I can see the arguement.

[Chickenwing]

It's not being for or against trees that is the hang up. Many new business and home sites want trees, eventually, on their property, but of course cut them down when they are built. That's nothing new, been going on for quite a while. Older pictures of the North Main area show that when that area was developed in a large way over 60 years ago, it was virtually clear up and many of today's trees were planted then.

At the moment, especially in a businesses that just don't have great margins due to lots of factors, like housing and retail construction, there just aren't a lot of incentives to work around trees and still be cost effective. And since the builder just wont' be around 15 years in the future for that site, their concern is the next year, not that far in advance.

A better route might be things like tax incentives or other such deals, to use a carrot rather than a stick, especially for erosion control and other evironmental issues.

Groups like Upstate Forever, which do good for local conservation efforts, can be accused of top down approaches to solving problems. Many home owners and builders feel that their business and property rights are being threatened, which are legitimate concerns.

If the government wants to get involved in this, again, a carrot approach, rather than a stick approach would be a better way to go.

[breed]

Many home owners... feel that their business and property rights are being threatened, which are legitimate concerns.

[Galley]

I traveled to Raleigh this past weekend to attend a Carolina Hurricanes hockey game. I've never seen so many trees in my life! My ex was complaining because you couldn't see any motels and restaurants from the Interstate. I guess she used to the "wide-open spaces" of Greenville.

[Greenville]

I traveled to Raleigh this past weekend to attend a Carolina Hurricanes hockey game. I've never seen so many trees in my life! My ex was complaining because you couldn't see any motels and restaurants from the Interstate. I guess she used to the "wide-open spaces" of Greenville.

[Spartan]

I think that ultimately preserved trees area good thing. If you can encourage their maintenance and prevent their destruction thats great. You do have to watch out for that line to where people think their personal liberties are being violated though. All of our old beautiful neighborhoods were indeed clearcut, but that doesnt' mean we have to repeat the mistakes of the past. Greenville, of all places, should push to keep that "green" part of the city alive any well as much as possible.

I'll tell you that living in Charlotte has made me appreciate what a good tree ordinance can do. The trees here are what make this city great. I see no reason why any other piedmont city couldnt do the same thing.

[gs3]

A couple colleagues attended... and mentioned that the overwhelming majority of those who spoke against were concerned for personal property rights do to what they want in their own backyards. Ironically, the ordinance doesn't apply to what homeowners do in their own backyards.

A copy of the proposed ordinance, for those interested...

http://www.greenvillecounty.org/County_Cou...%2010-15-07.pdf

[btoy]

As part of this ordinance they should ban Bradford Pear Trees, those things are ugly and disgusting.

[linkerjpatrick]

As part of this ordinance they should ban Bradford Pear Trees, those things are ugly and disgusting.

[StrangeCock]

And pathetically weak. Their branches snap off every time a squirrel farts.

[linkerjpatrick]

And pathetically weak. Their branches snap off every time a squirrel farts.

[gs3]

As part of this ordinance they should ban Bradford Pear Trees, those things are ugly and disgusting.

[goodbye]

I am in complete agreement with each of you regarding the expulsion of the Bradford Pear in the Upstate!

[Galley]

The developer of our neighborhood planted red maples instead of bradford pears.

[breed]

The developer of our neighborhood planted red maples instead of bradford pears.

[crescentmoon]

I've seen a bunch of bradofrd pears used in landscaping... it seems to me as though they were perceived more positively at one point then they are now... so what changed? Are there any benefits to using them?

[B&R]

They were really popular a decade or so ago because they look spectacular when they bloom. They look good while driving by for a few weeks in the Spring. Unfortunately you have to leave them up all year for those few weeks. And you don't smell them when you are zooming by.

[gs3]

Here is a really good read on the pros (few) and cons (many) of the Bradford Pear.

http://www.emmitsburg.net/gardens/articles...dford_pears.htm

[janrey]

I agree to a point. I love trees but I often see a worse problem, especially in South Carolina when developers come in, not only take all the trees down strip off all the good soil leave that nasty red dirt that homeowner have to spend literally years to redevelop. If I can live in a neighborhood where they are a lot of shade trees I much prefer that however I don't want to be told what I can and can not be done with trees on my own property. Now if they encroach on my neighbors property or effect drainage, etc. done the line I can see the arguement.

[linkerjpatrick]

I know this is a mute point now, BUT, this was a popular misconception about the tree bill. It had nothing to do with individual rights to remove trees.

[janrey]

All this being said. Does anyone know the best to get other land owner to cut down trees that pose a risk to property if they are land owners of adjoining land? We have a "no mans land" behind our house that has a damaged pine tree (the last ice storm brought down almost half the branches on one side). The land belongs to an apartment community behind us but this is one of those sections of land that is used for drainage or something and is quite overgrown and can't really be developed into a yard. We thought about buying this chunck of land to extend our backyard but the land wouldn't have much of a use unless we had some bridges and other creative landscaping but realistically I don't think we could really use it or if it would be worth the cost.

[linkerjpatrick]

Offer to do it for them? Some may not be wanting to spend the money to remove it but if you offer to pay to remove or to do it yourself they might be willing to let you. Other than that, if there are power lines then Duke will do it (you might need to tell them it's a hazard to the power lines).