Hacker News Reader

Comment by iAMkenough | Hacker News Reader

What most municipalities seem to fail to account for with urban canopy initiatives is the increased maintenance costs associated with root growth under pavement/sidewalks and increased private property burdens when trees die or are blown over in increasingly more severe wind storms. My city had multiple "derechos" a few years ago, and there's still plenty of yards with hazardous branches over structures and piles of decaying wood with no one that can afford to haul them away. Anecdotally I've heard that this is grounds for home insurance companies to deny renewed coverage.

View on HN

Definitely worth pointing out not all trees are suitable for urban greening.

I can't remember what they're called, but in Australia we plant some deciduous tree that has deep but narrow root base which makes them minimally destructive to footpaths etc, as well as, being quite resistant to wind (especially in winter when they don't have leaves!)

NYC uses ginkgos for this purpose. They still make up a fairly small portion of the trees in the city, though. They're also particularly hardy when it comes to handling pollution, which is obviously valuable in cities.

I believe this style of root system is called a taproot.

From TFA:

> “It’s about not just planting more trees, but the right tree in the right spot,” said Alexander Kobald, a researcher at Cornell University. “It’s really focusing on what the spot calls for and making sure the people [who live near the trees] feel heard.”

What is this “researcher” saying though? There’s nothing specific. It’s just some vague thing with a dash of social justice signaling thrown in.

Who decides what a spot calls for? How do we communicate with it. What is “right” and how do we ensure the right tree was put in spots that have been classified as “right”?

Is this a serious person?

In my city they measure the space between the sidewalk and roadway and recommend specific tree species to fit, depending on overhead wires and any underground utilities present. They also look at soil type and diversity of nearby trees.

NYC is also interesting in that landowners are responsible for maintaining the sidewalks in front of their property instead of the city.

Depending on your point of view, that's actually a solution to the problem you pose: the costs of maintaining damage from this plan are spread across private owners.

It does mean that owners will grumble in fall months when they have to clear leaves from their sidewalks, and will complain in the rare occasions when their sidewalks crack, meanwhile their home value ticks upward silently.

> NYC is also interesting in that landowners are responsible for maintaining the sidewalks in front of their property instead of the city.

Is that really unique? Everywhere I've lived the resident is required to clear leaves and snow.

I’ve never heard of such a thing. Where I am sidewalks are municipally owned and maintained.

I thought clearing ice from sidewalks was always the responsibility of the land owner. The sidewalks are on easements but it's still owned by whoever owns the rest of the property. This is why sidewalk clearage is always inconsistent; some property owners are very diligent while others are negligent. And this is also why there are so many horror stories about property owners getting sued when somebody slips and breaks their hip; it was their responsibility to keep the sidewalk passable so if they don't they become liable for resulting accidents.

It definitely doesn’t work like that in Quebec.

Creating perverse incentives where real estate owners are responsible for the damages caused by trees that the city insists on planting (and real estate owners are likely prohibited from maintaining) is not what I'd call a "solution". Asset values going up doesn't do anything about those perverse incentives. And in fact rising asset values is actually a liability for long-term owner occupiers, ultimately just facilitating more financialization and centralization of wealth by professional investors.

I'm all for more trees. I'm just against this dynamic where such improvements are partially funded at the outset only, leaving the fallout as externalities that everyone has to suffer. If the city wants to plant trees that will eventually destroy the sidewalk, then the city should take on the responsibility for maintaining the sidewalks.

If they are planting trees so that the roots destroy the sidewalk they are planting the wrong trees.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com