Seattle

2079 readers

61 users here now

A community for news and discussion of Seattle, Washington and the surrounding area

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

steelrat@lemmy.world

A private Seattle golf course allegedly axed over 200 trees. Are the city’s removal laws being enforced? (m.kuow.org)

submitted 18 hours ago by pelespirit@sh.itjust.works to c/seattle@lemmy.world

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The loss of tree canopy at Sand Point was so extreme that Theo Hoss, a natural resources graduate student at Oregon State University, noticed it as part of his master's capstone project. Hoss was using the city's own light detection and ranging technology to look at changes in the tree canopy between 2016 to 2021.

He found that 94% of the 255 acres of tree canopy lost during that five-year period was from parcels that applied for development permits. Developers were basically clearing lots to build new homes, offices, apartment buildings, and condos.

But the 88-acre Sand Point parcel was an outlier. The club had applied for no development permit but accounted for 5.7 acres of the lost tree canopy.

"What we're seeing with Sand Point is a truly significant net canopy loss over that five-year period in absence of new construction to explain it," Hoss said. "It's actually the fifth highest canopy loss on any single parcel in the city that wasn't subject to redevelopment."

top 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (2 children)

They are in residential neighborhoods. For businesses maybe the mileage varies, as with their tax breaks.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 6 points 17 hours ago

But dozens of last-minute amendments created loopholes for developers that made the new ordinance even weaker than the one it replaced, Claudia Newman, a partner at Bricklin & Newman, a Seattle-based firm that specializes in land use and environmental law, told KUOW.

"Under the previous code, we were losing tree canopy," Newman said. "Under the new code, things got worse."

[–] garland@social.seattle.wa.us 2 points 16 hours ago

@LovableSidekick Private golf courses in Seattle enjoy massive tax breaks. https://www.theurbanist.org/its-time-to-end-public-subsidies-for-private-golf-courses/

[+] chonkyninja@lemmy.world -22 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

Who fucking cares, how many fucking trees are around, Western WA of all places doesn’t need your whiny fucking complaining.

[–] aramis87@fedia.io 7 points 15 hours ago

Well, you seem like a pleasant person. I'm just going to block you and remove you from my life.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 8 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

lmao, who peed in your wheaties this morning?

[–] sleet01@lemmy.ca 4 points 16 hours ago

Trees, I bet.

[–] Seaguy05@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Woah there y'all. This person could just be having heat exhaustion from all the radiant heat from cement and asphalt in their treeless home.

Although, I think the argument they might be trying to make, although I'm going on a limb here, is why can the city control what a land owner does on their private property concerning trees and canopy. It's not like the other rich assholes who cut down green belt trees to increase their property value. This scenario is just rich and exclusive assholes cutting down their own trees without a permit so they play slightly better.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 1 points 13 hours ago

You can't do that for the same reason you can't plant trees in the middle of the sidewalk, or your house can get eminent domained so they can build a highway through your former, owned lot. It's for the community. Same with fire laws, egress, etc.