![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Tree Huggers V Tree Haters
Jul. 27th, 2025 10:24 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
iosonochesonoYesterday I had a lovely evening getting to know two of my neighbours (well, non-politically, I doubt living on the DLP side of the street we'd get along politically, but I can't afford the RNC side - I have to be careful about that because sectarianism is alive and well here). They have a dog that Jake gets on very well with and I spoke with them for a while - we got to discussing the trees.
I saw the house in the fall and winter. I loved the trees; it was one of the appealing things about the house. However, as we got into summer it became clear one of the trees seems to be dead, and quite a few of them are tall enough to hit the houses - or if not, they are close. They are also getting all tangled up in the internet lines and putting them at risk.
I've been trying to find the trees' owners for months. They need topped and cut back and one tree possibly removed...
I've found out almost everyone on my street is a nature-hater. Lol. They want to cut all the trees down. All they do is complain about bird shit on their car (they're blaming seagulls* that they say one neighbour is feeding - I've never seen him doing so - or the squirrels ('just hairy rats.') They want to remove the trees so there is no shade during the summer (which I've commented as a benefit that helps insulate our house from the heat during heat waves - and besides that, we do get a fair amount of sun, just not for huge periods.)
So they're trying to gun for getting all of the trees removed. One of them says all the trees are actually dying due to a disease anyway, but, obviously not a reliable narrator.
Ugh!
The only thing is, the owners of the trees - it turns out it's a utility company - apparently have no intention of taking responsibility for them. They are currently a liability to the building and for insurance purposes. The dead one is right behind my house so my house is probably most at risk of being hit by a falling tree.
*I can't believe they hate squirrels - my dog loves watching them - and honestly, whoever heard or saw a seagull perching in a tree. They land on the roofs! You're just going to make it easier for the man to attract seagulls from the other side of the river if you remove all the trees with no intention of replanting. Not to mention the additional stress of heatwaves, not to mention the additional noise when you now get the noise from the houses on the other side of the river with no muffling at all from the rows of trees on either side of the river bank.
The TL;DR: If the utility company doesn't take responsibility for these trees, I have to play 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' because our house is at risk from one of these trees. All those trees are a risk if they're not being maintained so the only option is to take them all down.
I suppose, if they successfully get all the trees removed, when they whinge in a few years that it's too hot (given every year has been the new 'hottest year on record' that shouldn't be long), I can point out that trees reduce heat by 8-10F (after looking what that is in Celsius) and that perhaps we should plant some new healthy trees out back. Maybe some fruit trees since groceries keep going up in price. I wanted to plant a fruit tree or two.
The guy was also telling me I have to keep my hydrangea, to which I gave a flat 'no.' If you want a hydrangea plant it in your own garden, I personally got my garden for my dog and want to turn it into a small agility field. Which they're welcome to share with their dogs if they like, because they all got on so well, but I'm not keeping the hydrangea.
On another note - this type of thing is why I 100% believe in overpopulation. People talking about how the world could theoretically sustain all of us, when none of us want to live the same way and a lot of people if they had a choice would cut all the trees and live in an inauthentic, non-endemic concrete jungle with tightly manicured grass lawns. Even if corporations states dissolved their assets 100% into re-organising into a development and transition to a circular economy - you have a lot of people that just freaking hate nature. They would literally destroy the world into oblivion and you can only manage it by keeping the population low enough that they can choose to live in areas that minimise their damage. Fortunately, this street is a good example of that - it's just two rows of trees in an otherwise very urban environment (in fact, I think the river itself has been reinforced with concrete at the banks to keep it together from development.) So it's not exactly a major ecological loss. But it's exactly the sort of reason I don't believe humans will ever be sustainable in tens of billions. Maybe a couple billion. (I don't believe in eco-fascism though - my train of thought is you fight for human rights because people with low infant mortality rates, living in peace-time, with free access to shelter, healthcare, education, etc. - well, they tend to have less babies so the problem sorts itself.)
I suppose my only other real question is, if you hate nature so much, why are you living right down the street from a country park and up the street from another?
I need to get a fence with good privacy because they're not going to be a fan of my native-plants, 'Let it Grow May' and 'Let it alone June/July' to help pollinators.
I know that sounds like a huge complaint, but they are actually lovely people otherwise and since the trees aren't being maintained it's not such a big deal as long as they back off trying to police how I landscape my garden when I get around to it. Lol. If they make it an issue I take out my hydrangea and gear the garden toward my dog, that will be another story. Here I am planning a seesaw and hoops/tunnels with a few crops and they are trying to tell me I need to keep a tree smack dab in the middle of my garden making it impossible to do anything with the space.
I saw the house in the fall and winter. I loved the trees; it was one of the appealing things about the house. However, as we got into summer it became clear one of the trees seems to be dead, and quite a few of them are tall enough to hit the houses - or if not, they are close. They are also getting all tangled up in the internet lines and putting them at risk.
I've been trying to find the trees' owners for months. They need topped and cut back and one tree possibly removed...
I've found out almost everyone on my street is a nature-hater. Lol. They want to cut all the trees down. All they do is complain about bird shit on their car (they're blaming seagulls* that they say one neighbour is feeding - I've never seen him doing so - or the squirrels ('just hairy rats.') They want to remove the trees so there is no shade during the summer (which I've commented as a benefit that helps insulate our house from the heat during heat waves - and besides that, we do get a fair amount of sun, just not for huge periods.)
So they're trying to gun for getting all of the trees removed. One of them says all the trees are actually dying due to a disease anyway, but, obviously not a reliable narrator.
Ugh!
The only thing is, the owners of the trees - it turns out it's a utility company - apparently have no intention of taking responsibility for them. They are currently a liability to the building and for insurance purposes. The dead one is right behind my house so my house is probably most at risk of being hit by a falling tree.
*I can't believe they hate squirrels - my dog loves watching them - and honestly, whoever heard or saw a seagull perching in a tree. They land on the roofs! You're just going to make it easier for the man to attract seagulls from the other side of the river if you remove all the trees with no intention of replanting. Not to mention the additional stress of heatwaves, not to mention the additional noise when you now get the noise from the houses on the other side of the river with no muffling at all from the rows of trees on either side of the river bank.
The TL;DR: If the utility company doesn't take responsibility for these trees, I have to play 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' because our house is at risk from one of these trees. All those trees are a risk if they're not being maintained so the only option is to take them all down.
I suppose, if they successfully get all the trees removed, when they whinge in a few years that it's too hot (given every year has been the new 'hottest year on record' that shouldn't be long), I can point out that trees reduce heat by 8-10F (after looking what that is in Celsius) and that perhaps we should plant some new healthy trees out back. Maybe some fruit trees since groceries keep going up in price. I wanted to plant a fruit tree or two.
The guy was also telling me I have to keep my hydrangea, to which I gave a flat 'no.' If you want a hydrangea plant it in your own garden, I personally got my garden for my dog and want to turn it into a small agility field. Which they're welcome to share with their dogs if they like, because they all got on so well, but I'm not keeping the hydrangea.
On another note - this type of thing is why I 100% believe in overpopulation. People talking about how the world could theoretically sustain all of us, when none of us want to live the same way and a lot of people if they had a choice would cut all the trees and live in an inauthentic, non-endemic concrete jungle with tightly manicured grass lawns. Even if corporations states dissolved their assets 100% into re-organising into a development and transition to a circular economy - you have a lot of people that just freaking hate nature. They would literally destroy the world into oblivion and you can only manage it by keeping the population low enough that they can choose to live in areas that minimise their damage. Fortunately, this street is a good example of that - it's just two rows of trees in an otherwise very urban environment (in fact, I think the river itself has been reinforced with concrete at the banks to keep it together from development.) So it's not exactly a major ecological loss. But it's exactly the sort of reason I don't believe humans will ever be sustainable in tens of billions. Maybe a couple billion. (I don't believe in eco-fascism though - my train of thought is you fight for human rights because people with low infant mortality rates, living in peace-time, with free access to shelter, healthcare, education, etc. - well, they tend to have less babies so the problem sorts itself.)
I suppose my only other real question is, if you hate nature so much, why are you living right down the street from a country park and up the street from another?
I need to get a fence with good privacy because they're not going to be a fan of my native-plants, 'Let it Grow May' and 'Let it alone June/July' to help pollinators.
I know that sounds like a huge complaint, but they are actually lovely people otherwise and since the trees aren't being maintained it's not such a big deal as long as they back off trying to police how I landscape my garden when I get around to it. Lol. If they make it an issue I take out my hydrangea and gear the garden toward my dog, that will be another story. Here I am planning a seesaw and hoops/tunnels with a few crops and they are trying to tell me I need to keep a tree smack dab in the middle of my garden making it impossible to do anything with the space.