3 ms·

Kind of an odd flex given how walkable San Francisco is, but the "risk adversity" is because people actually die. Last year, five people died from fallen trees

Kind of an odd flex given how walkable San Francisco is, but the "risk adversity" is because people actually die. Last year, five people died from fallen trees in a single storm (two in the city).

FactolSarin 2y ago
Mexico City is one of the largest cities in the world. Five people out of 21 million is nothing. Sure, every death is tragic, but there are a lot more efficient ways to spend time and money preventing deaths than tree trimming.
- inferiorhuman 2y ago
  Five deaths in the Bay Area from one storm, two in San Francisco (with a population around 800,000). There were other tree related deaths last year. More to the point, the trees that the city is actively removing are old, mature ficus trees that present a variety of risks (e.g. sidewalks, sewer and other underground utilities), overhead (e.g. public transit) wires.
  - kjkjadksj 2y ago
    Too bad ficus are easily the densest canopy tree I’ve seen in california
varius 2y ago
On the other hand, trees cool down the area so having lot of them should lead to fewer heat-strokes. Last week we hit 95F in my area and I wouldn't be able to walk my dog if not for the trees.
- pvaldes 2y ago
  Is not an easy decision. Politicians can be sued if a branch falls over somebody, but can get rid easily of the ten thousands of kills a year by contamination on air and water. Of course somebody being crushed by a tree is a real tragedy, but if the same people would have a heart attack because nitrogen emissions are out of the charts, or they get ill by asthma and can't work, would not reach the news. An interesting question is: Have people trees because is rich, or they are richer because they had trees? (and this will save a lot of money each year on energy bills, food and even psychologists). Trees are a tool to fight poverty. The problem is how to made the poor people respect them.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Kind of an odd flex given how walkable San Francisco is, but the "risk adversity" is because people actually die. Last year, five people died from fallen trees in a single storm (two in the city).

FactolSarin 2y ago

Mexico City is one of the largest cities in the world. Five people out of 21 million is nothing. Sure, every death is tragic, but there are a lot more efficient ways to spend time and money preventing deaths than tree trimming.

inferiorhuman 2y ago
Five deaths in the Bay Area from one storm, two in San Francisco (with a population around 800,000). There were other tree related deaths last year. More to the point, the trees that the city is actively removing are old, mature ficus trees that present a variety of risks (e.g. sidewalks, sewer and other underground utilities), overhead (e.g. public transit) wires.
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  Too bad ficus are easily the densest canopy tree I’ve seen in california

varius 2y ago

On the other hand, trees cool down the area so having lot of them should lead to fewer heat-strokes. Last week we hit 95F in my area and I wouldn't be able to walk my dog if not for the trees.

pvaldes 2y ago
Is not an easy decision. Politicians can be sued if a branch falls over somebody, but can get rid easily of the ten thousands of kills a year by contamination on air and water. Of course somebody being crushed by a tree is a real tragedy, but if the same people would have a heart attack because nitrogen emissions are out of the charts, or they get ill by asthma and can't work, would not reach the news. An interesting question is: Have people trees because is rich, or they are richer because they had trees? (and this will save a lot of money each year on energy bills, food and even psychologists). Trees are a tool to fight poverty. The problem is how to made the poor people respect them.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]