Too many trees in East Dulwich. (Lounged)

[jrussel]

I don't know if anyone else feels this way but I do think there is an excess of trees in East Dulwich and I think this can mainly be attributed to the laziness of the council.

This is not the countryside, it is a capital city. Therefore it seems quite unacceptable to allow the trees to get out of control in the way that they do. They lift up pavements with their roots which can cause people with mobility difficulties many problems, and dead branches and leaves can fall off and injure people or damage property. Drains blocked by rotting leaves can cause serious harm to buildings. They also encourage pigeons and other pests.

I am not anti-tree per se but I think they should be kept to appropriate areas. I would like to hear other peoples' views on this matter as I am currently drafting a letter to local councillors as well as Boris Johnston.

[Shaolin Wolf]

Please tell me this isn`t a serious posting....too many trees???? Can understand maintenance of trees and their leaves etc causing a problem for mobility challenged individuals, which is of course down to council but surely there are too many people not too many trees...if you cull trees then cull people who use the bi products of green things ie oxygen!!

[Brendan]

Please don?t. Cleaner air, more privacy, a habitat for wildlife and a bit of natural beauty in amongst all the urban ugliness far outweigh the cons.

[lawnmowerman]

thats crazy talk! lots of trees is a GOOD THING. especially in a capital city

[JamesG]

I am relatively new to the EDF so am unfamiliar with the etiquette surrounding responding to people?s postings. Please therefore excuse me if I get it wrong.

Are you a comedian? If not I suggest the administrators insist on psyche testing all members.

[jrussel]

Shaolin Wolf Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Please tell me this isn`t a serious posting....too

> many trees???? Can understand maintenance of trees

> and their leaves etc causing a problem for

> mobility challenged individuals, which is of

> course down to council but surely there are too

> many people not too many trees...if you cull trees

> then cull people who use the bi products of green

> things ie oxygen!!

What do you mean too many people? Are you seriously suggesting culling people? If you do not cull people then you will have to relocate them, which will result in even more urban sprawl and even more pollution and CO2 emissions. And no countryside left to grow trees in, which is where they should be.

We need to be concentrating on making our cities denser, not filling up useful space with trees.

[jrussel]

JamesG Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am relatively new to the EDF so am unfamiliar

> with the etiquette surrounding responding to

> people?s postings. Please therefore excuse me if

> I get it wrong.

>

> Are you a comedian? If not I suggest the

> administrators insist on psyche testing all

> members.

I am not sure if making implications about other posters' mental health is "good etiquette", if that is what you mean by "psyche testing".

[Mark]

I like there being lots of trees in East Dulwich. And remember Boris is aiming to plant lots more trees in London so I'm with him on that.

[lozzyloz]

jrussel surely one of the many attractions of ED are the trees? Are you suggesting their removal, or just better management of their coexistence in public areas? Would be interested to read your draft.

[Moos]

Jrussel, just to be clear, since you say 'not filling up useful space with trees' are you talking about removing park space? I thought you were talking about clearing trees from pavements.

Either way, I couldn't disagree with you more. I too suspect you're winding us up.

[Jah Lush]

What Brendan said.

So, let me get this right you want to live in a concrete jungle?

Go hug a tree.

[Moos]

Too much hot air in East Dulwich.

(but we knew that already)

This thread gets my vote for Daftest '08

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

With a name like jrussel, it has to be Jack which we all know is another name for a knave.

[Shaolin Wolf]

If you can cull trees then hypothetically i should be allowed to cull people too..fairs fair when we all use the resources of the planet. A short trip to Japan and a quick chat with the G8 will sort it out perhaps?? Nonsense speak!!! Denser cities?? What on earth are you talking about? There should be more trees and less people, more resources and it should be shared equally amongst the species not kept for the `priveleged` nations. Perhaps we should have thought of all this a long time ago when it was brought to our collective attentions perhaps?

[Mark]

jrussel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We need to be concentrating on making our cities denser, not filling up useful space with trees.

No we don't that's just silly talk. We create a built environment where we can all live in decent surroundings and that includes having trees around make the place look nice.

[JamesG]

So you are a comedian.

Ha Ha very funny??yes lets get rid of the trees apart from in "appropriate areas".

How about we campaign for the increased use of plastic bags and the compulsory burning of car tyres when worn out.

[LuvPeckham]

Hmmm

Interesting post Jrussel

Personaly I enjoy having trees around me rather then staring blankly at concrete buildings as you would if you had your way and made this a concrete jungle without any trees in it

I am rather confused how "leaves can fall off and injure people" (okay I am taking it out of context here) and sure there are occasional problems with some of the more mature and well established trees lifting the paving stones with their roots, but that is nature for you and I for one wouldn't want to see a tree cut down jsut because it has grown taller over the years ... that is akin to saying that anyone with feet over a certain size damages the pavement when they walk so we have to cull them all... (yes I know not the same way as a tree root does but you see what I am driving at as a concept)

So what is an appropriate area in your mind, lets look at the tree lined streets of Paris for example (another major city and so much better for the trees growing in it) or Washington DC with the main mall (full of trees) and the Cherry trees near the Capitol building that look splended in the spring. Why shouldn't we be proud of trees that make the roads look more natural and less , well boring to be honest... and if we didn't have trees then where would the sparrows sing their dawn songs from, and sure the Pigeons use them as well but so do the magpies, crows, sparrow hawks, thrushes, robins, tits and a variety of other wonderful wildlife (actually it would stop those pesky squirels thought)

Still I guess if we didn't have trees in the streets then the local dogs wouldn't go to the toilet (poor puppies) no one would collect conkers, there would be a poor air quality as the trees help with that, sound from passing cars would be louder as the trees help to baffle that as well, Autumn would be grey (and concrete) and most of all spring would be so much less joyful when the local trees (that weren't here) fail to bud, produce blossm and then get covered in leaves.

I guess one thing to consider is who do the trees belong to, are they council property or public property, if they have been here for longer then the road then obviously they don't belong to anyone and they have the right to grow freely, but equally they are something that the majority of people actually enjoy (straw poll of 1 in my household and everyone voted for the trees).

I am not one to normally say things like this, and I believe everyone has the right to an opinion, but I feel driven by the concept of your post so much that I really have to respond with

"Get a life Jrussel"

[Michael Palaeologus]

I agree with him!

Just look at all the complaints that we have on the Forum that are caused by an excess of trees:

Lost Cats - with no trees you could actually see the little blighters

Stabbings - the potential murderers hide behind the trees, thus the trees are themselves culpable in these assaults and deserve the chop

Lost tortoises - see Lost Cats

Loud Birds - no trees, no nests, no birds, no noise

No social life - meet new friends chopping down trees

Falling property prices - prices have dropped since more trees have been planted, clearly there is a causal link between these two phenomena - down with trees, up with the prices

UFOs - Aliens hide in the trees and spy on us

Too much light from street lights - fewer trees means that more moonlight would penetrate to street level and so we would need fewer street lights

Oil prices - burn trees for fuel, if the Victorians could do it, so can we

Global warming - fewer trees means less woodage acting as a thermal blanket and so the Globe would cool down

Housing shortages for key workers - chop the trees down and build wooden houses on the municipal Parks for the key workers

Local pubs closing - fewer trees (and the resulting key worker new housing) means fewer parks to go for walks in and so more time to spend in pubs

Over-pressed NHS - fewer trees, fewer falling branches, fewer visits to A&E

Peckham - the key worker's new housing on Goose Gree and the Rye would act as a barrier to the Peckhamites

Public transport - erm ....DO I HAVE TO THINK OF EVERYTHING!

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

sublime, Michael.

[jrussel]

Mark Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> jrussel Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > We need to be concentrating on making our cities

> denser, not filling up useful space with trees.

>

> No we don't that's just silly talk. We create a

> built environment where we can all live in decent

> surroundings and that includes having trees around

> make the place look nice.

I assume you are not much of an expert on current thinking re. urban planning and development.

The Americans have been building their cities at very low density for years and they are now one of the worst-offending greenhouse gas polluters on the planet. Australia too. Only recently are they realising they can't go on like this, mainly because they are being forced to review their ways by increasing energy prices.

See here for example:

http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/669341.html

It is still possible to create a decent living environment with very few trees. Have you ever been to Venice? Instead of planting trees to soak up pollution and noise from road traffic, we should be getting rid of the road traffic. The road traffic generated by the kind of people who live in low density areas and who unfortunately are attracted to some parts of East Dulwich bringing their suburban nimbyism with them. If we got rid of some of the trees perhaps we would be less troubled by these types.

Prevention rather than cure, please.

[Jeremy]

Top post, Mr Palaeologus!

[Shaolin Wolf]

Hmmm Venice..not the most shining of examples...a city held up by ballasts out at sea and one of the worst sewage systems this side of a cracked Thames water main! Again i say cull people..surely thats the best prevention!!

[jrussel]

Shaolin Wolf Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hmmm Venice..not the most shining of examples...a

> city held up by ballasts out at sea and one of the

> worst sewage systems this side of a cracked Thames

> water main! Again i say cull people..surely thats

> the best prevention!!

Venice's problems are quite unrelated to its lack of trees, so your comment is a rather silly one.

[lozzyloz]

I'm stumped. No where in the article does it advocate "It is still possible to create a decent living environment with very few trees". In fact there's not even any mention of trees.

Now leaf us alone.

[Shaolin Wolf]

Of course it`s a silly posting jrussel...a mirror image of your original nonsense as i really can`t take your proposterous idea seriously. As LuvPeckham suggests...get a life i implore you!!