A neat article on san antonio's trees
news4sanantonio.com/amp/news/local/san-antoni...Posted Apr 9, 2021, 2:55 PM UTC
3518
news4sanantonio.com
I've always liked how many trees San Antonio seems to have. I'd love to see even more plant life around the city.
19
Production home builders coming into San Antonio, building crap homes, have destroyed our tree landscape.....
10
Honestly fuck those suburbs. We need to build UP on existing residential space. Hopefully make San Antonio more walkable.
6
They said the same thing when they constructed 281.
0
Thanks I appreciate the encouragement and support!
1
I get a kick of how Texans will curse live oaks as leaf, pollen, acorn producing demons then in the next breath say, “careful when you cut them though cause of the wilt.”
9
I get bad mountain cedar allergies, as in the kind of bad that will wreck my whole day. And many other people that I know have the same allergies. I never really hear people complain about the oaks. In fact, live oaks are some of the most popular and desirable trees in Texas.
3
Mature live oaks are majestic, adolescent live oaks are pricks. I have two in my front yard that I have pruned, watered, and mulched for ten years. They thank me with constant acorns, leaves, and pollen throughout the year to dig out of my grass and vehicles. They do look nice though, sorry about your allergies.
3
Definitely know those feels
3
Are our palms all screwed? Or are they gonna bounce back from the winter storm. A lot of them look terrible....
2
housing development over the next decade will seriously threaten our foliage canopy.
I've watched whole plots of trees be torn down for some big eyesores and it's sad. Hopefully we find better ways to meet housing demands while keeping as much nature as possible.
Agreed. It's very aggravating to see plots with lots of trees removed for a CVS and gas stations when there's a Walgreens and alternate gas station on the other side of the road.
Every tree taken down has to be either replaced or the cost to replace it must be paid into a fund managed by the city to replant trees in other areas of the city.
They'll pay the fee every time. It's more cheaper for them (the developers). It still give them free reign to bulldoze and who even knows if it's 1:1(probably not).
I mean it is literally in the code that it is 1:1
In theory. But in practice there are exceptions and developers take advantage, constantly. The developers apply for the exception and claim a hardship that prevents compliance, which can be anything really, or they just ignore the requirements until someone bothers to enforce, which is all hit or miss but usually more advantageous to risk it. These developers apply a ton of pressure on officials to approve their exemptions or just to move faster than the city can enforce, or to just claim that enforcement would be detrimental to the city economy. And it works.. The area has already dropped below canopy thresholds and the problem isn't slowing.