horribleblob Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 Why does this read like one of the posts in Private Eye's From The Message Boards? Excellent observation, LeMaquis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey104 Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 Just seen a lady with a bag of leaflets which she was posting through letterboxes. She tried to offer me one explaining that it was about saving the trees in Sheffield. I am sure there is a delicious irony in there but for the life of me cannot think why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eccy Beach Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 Here's another for private eye - Council/Amey are accused of murdering healthy trees, protesters butcher perfectly healthy plants in order to attach flowers to the railings at Endcliffe Park. We're all equal, but some plants/trees are more equal than others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hogg Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 Here's another for private eye - Council/Amey are accused of murdering healthy trees, protesters butcher perfectly healthy plants in order to attach flowers to the railings at Endcliffe Park. We're all equal, but some plants/trees are more equal than others Not sure this is quite up to the standard of Private Eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crosser Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 Who planted these trees in the first place? because whoever did it has a lot to answer for! They (the trees) are a nuisance and a menace to many people. Trees should grow in woods & forests and NOT at the side of roads in urban areas where they cause damage, lack of sunlight, litter and bird crap over the whole area they annoy. Some bright spark thinks it is "environmentally friendly" to plant a few saplings on grass verges, then after a few years, the ruddy things take over and people say "They have been there longer than the houses", NO THEY HAVE NOT! They were planted by planners who had no idea of the impact they were going to have in the future. The lack of foresight isn't a problem, but the lack of doing something about the trees which blight peoples lives is. They should never have been planted on verges/roadsides in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackey lad Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 Who planted these trees in the first place? because whoever did it has a lot to answer for! They (the trees) are a nuisance and a menace to many people. Trees should grow in woods & forests and NOT at the side of roads in urban areas where they cause damage, lack of sunlight, litter and bird crap over the whole area they annoy. Some bright spark thinks it is "environmentally friendly" to plant a few saplings on grass verges, then after a few years, the ruddy things take over and people say "They have been there longer than the houses", NO THEY HAVE NOT! They were planted by planners who had no idea of the impact they were going to have in the future. The lack of foresight isn't a problem, but the lack of doing something about the trees which blight peoples lives is. They should never have been planted on verges/roadsides in the first place. a bit of maintenance over the years and we wouldn't be where we are now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 Who planted these trees in the first place? because whoever did it has a lot to answer for! They (the trees) are a nuisance and a menace to many people. Trees should grow in woods & forests and NOT at the side of roads in urban areas where they cause damage, lack of sunlight, litter and bird crap over the whole area they annoy. Some bright spark thinks it is "environmentally friendly" to plant a few saplings on grass verges, then after a few years, the ruddy things take over and people say "They have been there longer than the houses", NO THEY HAVE NOT! They were planted by planners who had no idea of the impact they were going to have in the future. The lack of foresight isn't a problem, but the lack of doing something about the trees which blight peoples lives is. They should never have been planted on verges/roadsides in the first place. I think you perhaps need to educate yourself about the numerous benefits of street trees. By arguing against them you are arguing against a large volume of scientific research and so doing so makes you look quite ill informed. This street tree map of New York City shows the environmental benefits of New York's street trees, and puts a monetary value on those benefits. https://tree-map.nycgovparks.org The total value of NYCs street trees (in the benefits they produce) is over $111,000,000 a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crosser Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 a bit of maintenance over the years and we wouldn't be where we are now Yes we would, because trees are not compatible with urban areas. Trees should live in wood & forests, people should live in cities/towns If people want to grow trees on their property, that's fine, but why should people who don't have to put up with .... A) The mess which the trees deposit on their property in autumn B) The lack of light said trees afford in Summer C) The Bird Crap all over their vehicles in any season D) The damage the tree roots do to their AND public property All of which was instigated by short-sighted planners and perpetuated by the tree-huggers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 Yes we would, because trees are not compatible with urban areas. Trees should live in wood & forests, people should live in cities/towns If people want to grow trees on their property, that's fine, but why should people who don't have to put up with .... A) The mess which the trees deposit on their property in autumn B) The lack of light said trees afford in Summer C) The Bird Crap all over their vehicles in any season D) The damage the tree roots do to their AND public property All of which was instigated by short-sighted planners and perpetuated by the tree-huggers. So New York City should cut down all their street trees then, and lose $111,000,000 a year in environmental benefits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crosser Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 I think you perhaps need to educate yourself about the numerous benefits of street trees. By arguing against them you are arguing against a large volume of scientific research and so doing so makes you look quite ill informed. This street tree map of New York City shows the environmental benefits of New York's street trees, and puts a monetary value on those benefits. https://tree-map.nycgovparks.org The total value of NYCs street trees (in the benefits they produce) is over $111,000,000 a year. OH! give me peace! Who cares about the monetary value of trees in NYC? The trees around here just cause mess, lack of light, damage & lack of vision on some road junctions. To be quite honest, I would fell ALL the trees on road verges in this city for those very reasons, then I would plant more where they wouldn't cause the same problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now