This comes up from time to time, and now again, so we can have a spot for examples or discussion. Current example is a large, urban tree it roots on someone's property but branches and leaves can extend beyond. It is that person's tree, except to the extent laws say it is not. Meanwhile, several forms of benefit from the tree are common goods. Austin TX (among many other cities) has laws about what you can do with 'your' large tree. Law may change. What I find interesting here is the repackaging of T of the C as creeping socialism. Seems novel and not particularly welcome. Texas governor who chopped down old tree will chop down law protecting old trees.
“Trees are naturally-occurring infrastructure that save City taxpayers billions of dollars in economic services annually, the city of Austin said..." Um...typically in my city trees are not naturally occurring and instead planted/ planned by the city or developers. Saves money? Um... clogged storm gutters, broken sidewalks. Perhaps the city saves money if it passes those costs onto its residents. Governor changing the law...seems politics always sways to special interest. Yet, I could agree some tree laws are, well, unfair. Fun/ enjoyable article.
You are correct that not all is well at the interface of tree and human construction.. It would be the largest trees in Austin that make the most leaves and the most leaf fall every...fall. Which somebody must deal with, because in cities you are supposed to have lawns, not 'forest floor'. Later we may get to the next level where a tree on person A's lot is shading photovoltaics on person B's lot.
pretty sure i've already read about that one. i can see both sides of the issue. sometimes, it depends on whose ox is being gored. i like being in control of what happens on my property, and also don't mind telling others what they can do with theirs.
Complicated subject, that with trees and neighbors. Example: One guy plants little eucalyptus trees immediately adjacent to a block wall fence that he shares with a neighbor. Goal is some shade. Little knowledge of dendrology. Parcels are 1/5 acre. Native vegetation is chaparral. Soil is rich and paired with climate offers numerous edible botanical opportunities when combined with irrigation. Guy moves out, years pass, trees are no longer little, just a wee ~100 feet tall now. Tree roots and branches destroy expensive fence, leaves fill another neighbors pool, tree branches fall on immediate neighbor's yard and destroy this neighbor's appropriately planned out smaller fruit trees. Neighbor with busted fence and dead fruit trees has a cursory knowledge of dendrology, so is upset at lack of planning on other parcel. Original big tree owner is long gone. New big tree owner likes the shade and deems it's not his problem, doesn't want anyone disturbing his trees. Neighbors not thrilled. Various ordinances apply locally. Other arguments in support of big tree owners in certain scenarios also potentially valid.
i think we are allowed to prune overhanging branches, but different state laws show the matter is not easily solved.
in my city trees are not naturally occurring@2. Certainly there are trees that grow naturally in Sausalito climate. It may also be true that 'climate-ideal' trees have no effective seed source in that area. Or, in cities more generally. On strength of the latter point, I'll rank this statement as "true but potentially misleading". Not appropriate for me to hammer Kenny, as I am basically envious of anyone living there. T of the C goes far beyond urban forestry; I only chose it as a kick-off example. Urban trees can be selected well, and planted well, or not. Even with two 'wells', conflict potentially remains in terms of branches, leaves, and shade. Public goods are, coincidentally, leaves and shade. Personally, I like urban streets with big trees better than small-tree or 'barren' ones. This may be trivial. There may be studies comparing property values among such, with good control of other factors.
