In highly litigious cultures like the USA, wouldn’t a city be wary of attracting lawsuits from people with bee-sting allergies for putting them at supposed risk?
Many cities plant lots of male dioecious trees (ie some individuals of the species only have staminate (“male”) flowers and others individuals only have pistillate (“female”) flowers, the city plants only the trees that produce staminate flowers) which produce twice as much pollen as they would if trees were selected more randomly. This is because they drop less litter. But it is bad for people with allergies. I don’t think any such people have had success suing their cities for this practice.
My understanding is that it's even worse than twice, because the female flowers of some species actually filter the pollen out of the air.