 Re: Your definition of a tree hugger
Azrael,
People need places to live.
The recent housing/land spike is making affordability out of reach for many.
There's a few sides to this.
Go past a flat panned development 20 years later and you have a leafy suburb.
Some of those leafy suburbs were total replants and now have a strong tree community ... trees that aren't forest remnants declining but new trees and flower exotics that are more accustomed to the new environment.
Have a look at any nursery or Bunnings on the weekend, lots of people always hang around the plants at markets too.
I'm personally more for flat panning a new urban development that paying token value to a handful of trees that will decline or absorb vast quantities of land that could make another home.
Parks incorporating a larger forest community is better, rather than leaving hazardous poor taper fringe trees.
I believe Karing-Gai council once had such crazy protection. People wanted the remnant gums out but were declined so. Then a long came a ripper storm and the damage bill was huge ... word is many approvals went through and council helped with equipment and crane hire to clean the mess up. Saving a tree? Many times it's not, it's irrational back patting and not a sustainable long term viability.
Within urban developments parks will play a larger part, with the shrinking urban block large trees almost need an entire house block to be saved.
Your eyes bear true witness and time is the judge.
The tree is "saved" and now in John Citizens yard, what parameters for care and inspection are there for the future of the tree? Tree gets miss treated or mysteriously die, gets removed anyway.
In cases where it's an exotic existing tree on a redevelopment it gets more interesting. However those trees stand a better chance as they have grown in the urban environment. These are cases on their own merits unlike say dozing 50 hectares of scrub. |