1 Tree 1 Lot

I had to pick my jaw up off the floor after listening to Mayor Pro-Tem Sandra Anderson Groat say during last week's City Council meeting that preserving or planting ONE TREE would hinder the development of affordable housing. Landscape Architect Randal Romie mentioned several of the benefits of having trees - some environmental, some beautification, but her response is that having a tree would be a maintenance burden on these homeowners. Really? Raking leaves and watering a tree periodically is a burden? Have you seen how much grass is planted at "affordable housing" locations? Grass requires weekly maintenance during the summer, requires much more water and does not provide nearly the same benefits as a grove - or even one single tree - of trees would provide.

This also got me to thinking that neighborhoods like Glenwood, Arlington Park and Ole Asheboro have tons of old, majestic shade-providing, air cleansing trees and if these areas don't qualify as affordable housing, then I don't know what does. Does she think these neighborhoods would be better off without trees? My very own house is completely shaded by trees on its east side and substantially shaded by a large pecan tree on its south side. I can get by most days without running the AC because of these trees. This would not be a remote possibility if I didn't have those trees. I would be baking in this house.

I've never heard of a more reasonable idea than keeping or planting one measly tree in a yard. This is absolutely a social justice issue...that somehow poor people don't deserve trees is absurd. The reality is, because they are low-income, they are less likely to plant a tree after moving in, but if it is already there (adding $3 to the cost of the house per City research on the issue), they will reap the benefits of that tree for years.

Seriously, Mayor Pro Tem Groat, please think a little bit more deeper on this subject.