BTW, the article states that there were disclosures--a meeting, hearings, and a sign (the neighbor said that it was on 15th and Maryland--that's a corner of the lot). Maybe there wasn't as much as they like, but it wasn't a secret.

I suspect as you suggested, this is more an aversion to 2 floor homes in a single story neighborhood than wanting to save the pine trees. In all reality, the homes will contribute less to urban heating than a vacant blacktop parking lot. However, I can't tell if there will be room for vegetation in front of the proposed homes, so not sure where the developer would plant equivalent trees as required by city code. I'm guessing around the remaining lawn of the church?

I'm against it because of the aleppo pines, I could care less about two story homes. I'm not the neighbors so I don't really have a say, but I honestly think the trees are very important to people.

I suspect that two-story houses would provide enough shade to offset the removal of mature trees. The bigger impact of losing mature trees is more in terms of their absorption of carbon dioxide. I'm surprised Talton ignored that argument.

First law of NIMBYism: Claim no one ever told me, even if they did tell me several times, several ways.

I'm not crazy about the loss of mature trees, but the aversion to any height at all is the epitome of NIMBYism. My biggest complaint about the project is the plan to make it gated, which will diminish walking and bicycling routes through the neighborhood. With bike lanes on both Maryland and 15th avenues, as well as two light rail stations nearby, the street grid should be as uninterrupted as possible.

I dont think its the two stories, 2 residential floors arent significantly taller than 1

In reality, no. In the NIMBY mind, a two-story house might as well be the Burj Khalifa.

Do you have any idea how little of an impact a dozen pine trees would make to Carbon Dioxide absorption.

That's ridiculous.

The Rouge columnist article is forgetting that there was a very serious push to remove trees and use desert landscaping and there still is by people who want low maintenance yards and the false myth that we have water scarcity issues.

I even remember hearing someone in Tempe 10 years ago talking about removing the Trees on Mill to save money on water. Not to mention the whole thing is a lamentation of suburbia and there is nothing anyone can do or have done about how things went. By the time he was a kid in the 1950's and 1960's sprawl was already in full swing for well over a decade. Id argue the gentrification of Arcadia, Camelback East downtown and Uptown AND midtown you will see trees come back.

And a final edit, these sort of articles about "oh how wonderful life was when I was a boy" annoy the hell out of me. First of all its rose colored glasses, all people look back on the days of their youth as innocent and perfect its how people remember things. And even if this isnt a case of childhood nostalgia and is true the writer of this piece is basically saying "me and people of my age group had a great society and way of life and somehow let it go to total shit over my lifetime"

Good job I guess? What a an indictment of your entire generation.

It's more a matter of setting a precedent. Whether the feared impact is loss of shade or less absorption of carbon dioxide, every time it's easy to remove one tree, it becomes easier to remove another, and so on. I'm not necessarily saying this project should be blocked over the loss of trees. I just find it interesting that Talton based his argument entirely on shade.

Yea, I don't like losing mature trees anywhere. However, I suspect that if even the trees were salvageable and planted elsewhere on the property, the neighborhood would pick apart something else...probably the height.

Also. as exit2lef pointed out, the development being gated does create a negative walk-ability experience for the area for many reasons. I would say that's a more valid argument there even more than the tree removal.

I'm actually pretty sad about losing mature trees as well. I'm hoping that the new plantings eventually replenish that capacity. Those old trees banked a lot of carbon (and I'm also hoping they use that wood to make some cool stuff, but they probably won't). As far as "gated," the plans look like there are two gates that won't interrupt the grid. The sense of security those gates supposedly will give is pretty hilarious. Butts out to the community (which is, I suspect, the real cause of the consternation).

You're consistently pretty abrasive and condescending when you disagree with someone, has anyone ever told you that?

Funny coming from Biggus. 😉

🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂

Poking the bear are you? :) :) :)

:shrug:

I don't like when people are rude and if someone says something rude to me (as two members here have continually done) I'll let you know your standing. I would do the same if someone said something rude to me in person, I'm too old to deal with that stuff.

That kind of stuff is why I read this forum for the better part of 2 years without joining. You can disagree with someone without talking to them like they are stupid. Rude behavior seems rampant on discussion boards in general but especially this one.

Here's a good read: https://science.howstuffworks.com/li...n-internet.htm

Talton...lol. :dissy::rolleyes: Most of his articles have the same tone. Back in the day/most people don't remember...dude seriously lives in the past.

And? :shrug:

Break it up already.

I lost interest after "false myth that we have water scarcity issues".

But we dont.

Ladies! Please!