Also;

To be fair, some of this is probably based on the larger tracts of land the rich purchase and the money they spend landscaping it. Some of it.

Having read the article I can deduce that if we plant some trees we'll all be rich and better looking.

Out here, trees cool houses and lower power bills. Neighborhoods without trees will have higher energy bills- especially in the summer.

Nadie_AZ: Out here, trees cool houses and lower power bills. Neighborhoods without trees will have higher energy bills- especially in the summer.

How much shade can you get from a Saguaro, anyway?

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Nadie_AZ: Out here, trees cool houses and lower power bills. Neighborhoods without trees will have higher energy bills- especially in the summer.

How much shade can you get from a Saguaro, anyway?

I guess that depends on how big it is?

truth

Nadie_AZ: I guess that depends on how big it is?

[i282.photobucket.com image 519x366]

Heh... point taken

I'm still not sold, I think the research might be a little shady.

"Since trees increase property values, this is a classic case of the rich being given whatever they need to get richer. And considering the other things trees do for us, it's also a case of the rich getting to be smarter, cooler, and have fewer allergies. "

This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. Poorer people can plant trees too, unfortunately the neighborhood doesn't look like it was planned for that many trees, or a residential park.

"Only rich people are allowed that many trees!" _{That doesn't even look like richville, either.}

Nadie_AZ: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Nadie_AZ: Out here, trees cool houses and lower power bills. Neighborhoods without trees will have higher energy bills- especially in the summer.

How much shade can you get from a Saguaro, anyway?

I guess that depends on how big it is?

[i282.photobucket.com image 519x366]

Hey! About 3 blocks from my folks' house!

violentsalvation: "Since trees increase property values, this is a classic case of the rich being given whatever they need to get richer. And considering the other things trees do for us, it's also a case of the rich getting to be smarter, cooler, and have fewer allergies. "

This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read.

Thank you. I think I lost 1/2 an IQ point just reading it.

Oh, so now you libs want to socialize trees?

Here in Portland we're lucky to have Friends of Trees. Two years ago we bought a house that didn't have anything planted. Through FoT we were able to buy 2 street trees and 2 trees for the backyard for a good price. Great community program.

Friends of Trees: Urban street and yard trees increase air and water quality, improve neighborhood livability, help mitigate stormwater runoff, boost property values, and help beautify neighborhoods.
friendsoftrees.org Since Friends of Trees was founded by Richard Seidman in 1989, we have planted more than 450,000 trees and native plants.

http://www.treebenefits.com/calculat or/

Is that...Is that a car on fire?

FTA: this is a classic case of the rich being given whatever they need to get richer.

Classic? WTF? If someone's giving away trees (and nobody is) the poor would be first in line.
Soon we'll hear money grows on tress.

violentsalvation: "Since trees increase property values, this is a classic case of the rich being given whatever they need to get richer. And considering the other things trees do for us, it's also a case of the rich getting to be smarter, cooler, and have fewer allergies. "

This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. Poorer people can plant trees too, unfortunately the neighborhood doesn't look like it was planned for that many trees, or a residential park.

"Only rich people are allowed that many trees!" That doesn't even look like richville, either.

Trees also have bees, attract crows, pigeons and starlings, jacaranda trees drop horrible dead flowers that ruin your cars and shoes, and I'd just as soon not have dead branches falling across my yard during windstorms, thanks.

This makes no sense. Pedros are often poor yet do the best landscaping. Surely they can grow something at home.

That entire article is a load of verbal diarrhea.

Smeggy Smurf: This makes no sense. Pedros are often poor yet do the best landscaping. Surely they can grow something at home.

Why spend money on something you don't own? Blame the landlords.

Duh. More non-reflective people in poor neighborhoods.

Godscrack: Also;
[img18.imageshack.us image 527x456]

Forgot to mark the bail bonds offices.

The poor got rid of all the gallows too.

RibbyK: FTA: this is a classic case of the rich being given whatever they need to get richer.

Classic? WTF? If someone's giving away trees (and nobody is) the poor would be first in line.
Soon we'll hear money grows on tress.

Of course money grows on trees. It makes perfect sense considering it's the rich that have all the trees.

West Oakland is as much industrial as it is residential. Piedmont is purely residential and in the hills. Of course it will look different.

Poor methodology. One can look at a sat photo of Manhattan and from the article's conclusion that it must be the world's poorest place (barring Central Park). It doesn't really take into consideration population density, zoning, etc etc etc.

W.C.fields forever: Is that...Is that a car on fire?

Nope, that's just smoke from the crack den.

LeglessDog: That entire article is a load of verbal diarrhea.

This.

Godscrack: Also;
[img18.imageshack.us image 527x456]

That neighborhood has way too many churches. They need to fix their zoning.

12349876: Smeggy Smurf: This makes no sense. Pedros are often poor yet do the best landscaping. Surely they can grow something at home.

Why spend money on something you don't own? Blame the landlords.

Grow herbs, peppers and tomatoes in pots. No BS from landlords

JesseL: Godscrack: Also;
[img18.imageshack.us image 527x456]

That neighborhood has way too many churches. They need to fix their zoning.

Also, don't bulldoze them unless you have disasters disabled.

Um, I am no expert but wouldn't the poor neighborhoods be blacked out in the photos?

Mentat: Oh, so now you libs want to socialize trees?

They would do so not by giving more trees to poor people, but rather by restricting how many trees rich people could have.

West Oakland never had trees. It's built on "reclaimed" marsh land. Piedmont is in the naturally forested Oakland hills.

Smeggy Smurf: 12349876: Smeggy Smurf: This makes no sense. Pedros are often poor yet do the best landscaping. Surely they can grow something at home.

Why spend money on something you don't own? Blame the landlords.

Grow herbs, peppers and tomatoes in pots. No BS from landlords

No visibility from space either. At least the level in TFA.

Smeggy Smurf: Grow herbs, peppers and tomatoes in pots.

I understand herb and pot but tomatoes and peppers are new ones.
Perhaps tomatoes = chicks and peppers = dlcks?

lockers: Um, I am no expert but wouldn't the poor neighborhoods be blacked out in the photos?

They photo bombed it.

And despite the implication of the Boobies, there really aren't very many liquor stores in West Oakland and only two small bars in the whole district

lockers: Um, I am no expert but wouldn't the poor neighborhoods be blacked out in the photos?

No, all the flashing blue and red lights keeps them illuminated.

RibbyK: Smeggy Smurf: Grow herbs, peppers and tomatoes in pots.

I understand herb and pot but tomatoes and peppers are new ones.
Perhaps tomatoes = chicks and peppers = dlcks?

No. Those are the things they put into the Burrito Supreme at Taco Bell.

This issue is far more complex than the article lets on. Lack of tree is definitely a sign of a low-income neighborhood, but it's not just because poorest neighborhoods are bad place to grow trees.

- places are mostly rentals, landlords don't take as much pride in the home and property value when the rent income keeps flowing
- renters don't usually have the money to keep landscaping maintained, often shouldn't do it as the landlord could feel threatened by it for various reasons
- when these subdivisions are built, cheap home construction usually involves a full clearcut, leave no older trees behind whereas upscale ones will keep a healthy number of trees around
- neighborhoods near industrial sites often have poorer soil and air quality, shortening the life of trees

etc, etc.

This is just their imagination! There is no such thing as income inequality.

Trickle down economics! More tax cuts for the Rich! The poor defenseless Job Creators need to coddled!

The article completely ignores the fact that poor *urban* areas look like this. Poor rural areas have trees just the same.

TotallyHeadless: West Oakland is as much industrial as it is residential. Piedmont is purely residential and in the hills. Of course it will look different.

I think the point here is that poor people will actually live side by side with industry, whereas wealthier folks don't.

A California State University, Northridge study once pointed out a large section of Sun Valley where there was 100% poverty. If you know the area, it's all junkyards and automotive chop shops. There are no trees, no parks, no shopping, no restaurants, and everything smells like rot and oil. If you could live elsewhere, you would. Of course only the destitute would stay there.

I understand that Zuckerman lost 25% of his trees this past week.

I live on a small farm. Few years back a tornado took out 7 large shade trees around the house and did some damage to the house. Fixed up the house but there are still no trees. Does that mean I'm poorer now than I was before the tornado? Just wondering because we are actually better off. Had a couple of great gigs. Meanwhile, my neighbors who don't have a pot to piss in still have all of their trees. Since I'm wealthier, do I get to commandeer their trees? Did Mother Nature forget to compare our bank balances before she denuded my farm of trees? After reading that article, I feel that I should be doing something to demand justice. Because reading articles like that one can make you that dumb.

I cut trees for a living and I can testify that the assertions in the article are true. But it is a symptom of people's mindset. People in poor neighborhoods tend to hate trees and just want them whacked away from their house. The hacking wounds the trees and creates structural problems later as the trees continue to grow. So they cut the trees down. Poor people don't want trees because they think trees are bad and dangerous. Many rich people think this way also, but some of them can be educated (and afford) about proper pruning instead of just hacking off any limb pointing toward the house. Rich people can also afford to plant decent trees instead of just letting whatever weeds sprout in the yard turn into big weed trees because nobody mowed them down.

clintp: The article completely ignores the fact that poor *urban* areas look like this. Poor rural areas have trees just the same.

Some of the poorest rural areas are quite heavily forested. See also: Appalachia and most of lower Mississippi.

The harder I work, the luckier shadier I get.

Smeggy Smurf: This makes no sense. Pedros are often poor yet do the best landscaping. Surely they can grow something at home.

Well sure, but they do it in the basement. What good is THAT going to do?