This article seems to completely miss the alternative explanation: that trees make a location more desirable and thus more valuable (and that the racial differe

This article seems to completely miss the alternative explanation: that trees make a location more desirable and thus more valuable (and that the racial differences in tree coverage stem from racial differences in income). Now, the redlining evidence shows that some of relationship runs in the (rich + white) → trees direction. But I posit that a significant portion of the correlation runs the other way: trees → rich.