Jesus Tapdancing Christ, people: if you need a yard that gets "some sun" consider buying land that isn't covered with ancient motherfucking trees!

This is idiotic, if you want to tell your neighbors what they can do plant or cut, move to a suburb with a homeowners association.

The tree loving assholes almost never own a large enough lot to grow their own trees, so they want to force other people to deal with it.

I am fine for restrictions on public land, rights of way, parks and schools. But private property restrictions is just more nimbyism.

Again where were these people 10 years ago when townhouses got the green light from the city?

Seattle's urban forest and trees are a vital component of the infrastructure of our city. They reduce stormwater runoff, clean CO2 and toxics from the air we breathe, provide screening from noise and visual blight, are habitat for our native plant and animal and bird and insect populations, and actually add increased property value to homes and businesses.

Just as we don't let people build without enforcing building codes or drive any speed they want, the city has a legitimate interest in trying to protect our urban forestry infrastructure and trees from being destroyed. Cutting down trees and increasing stormwater runoff increases costs to all of us by demanding more storm drains and culverts and concrete to control the runoff. More runoff means more pollution enters Puget Sound.

Urge the seattle City Council to increase protection for our urban forest. DPD is proposing the wrong solution.

As a lifelong professional forester I find this topic interesting...scientifically (and emotionally) naive, but interesting nonetheless. So where do I start.

For example, what, exactly, is a "rare" tree? A large specimen that is common elsewhere outside the city, like the Douglas firs or redcedars on my lot? Or a 900 year old Sequoia in someone's front yard (which I haven't seen yet)? The fact is that this country grows trees better than most areas of the West Coast...this is not Iowa, folks. Trees are everywhere, and they are definitely not "rare". And when trees gain enough height/mass, they definitely pose a risk to people and property when our winter winds tip them over...or when they begin to lose their battle with life.

Re the Oxygen,CO2 and toxins issues, there's not a lot of difference between the output of a Hydrangea, Japanese maple or your typical houseplant relative to an outside tree..except the latter is a bit taller. All green plants perform the same functions as they proceed through life. Just like us...

But I'm open for discussion...

Andy

Thank you for your thoughtful approach, Andy. There is no use of the word "rare" to describe trees in the city's documents. They typically use "significant", exceptional", or "heritage". For a scientific summation of why trees matter you might want to check out this link: http://www.americanforests.org/resources… .

Ruth