City leaders don’t talk enough about planting trees.
In addition to the obvious environmental benefits, research shows that more trees lead to improved mood, better cognition, lower stress, and even lower rates of chronic disease. And one study in Chicago public housing found that buildings surrounded by trees had dramatically less crime than those without.
So why aren't we planting more of them?
The "how" is the hard part and where many city leaders get stuck. It is hard to find the right type of tree, the right price for those trees, and the right location, and it is hard to plant them correctly.
The hardest part is finding enough funding given every city's massive list of other city budget funding priorities.
Even with enough cash, the best cities don’t just put money in the budget for "tree planting"; they build a tree planting strategy:
* Communicate the “why” so funding decisions are easier
* Set ambitious but realistic canopy and planting goals that get people excited
* Map where trees can actually go: streets, parks, medians, private yards, even around airports
* Source younger trees at scale (cheaper, easier to plant, higher survival rates)
* create a sustainability plan (pun intended) to make sure trees survive and thrive
*select diverse species so one pest or disease (like emerald ash borer or Dutch elm disease) doesn’t wipe out the entire urban forest
But here’s the secret weapon most cities don't do:
Give away trees for free.
Residents already want shade and beauty on their own property, and a tree in someone’s yard is just as valuable to the city as a tree on a city street. And having the residents volunteer to plant trees and care for them removes the cost of planting and maintenance from your budget.
If your city is serious about heat, health, and quality of life, trees are not a nice to have, they need to be a top priority.
Lets build your city's tree canopy together.
(link in comments to the full guide on how to plant more trees)
I don’t get why people feel that if you’re a fan of someone or something, that you have to defend everything that they do. I think spectrum of fandom has shifted so much because stans are so insane now that regular fans behave like how stans in the past would.
If the #Royals are serious, they have two options with Carlos Estevez heading into opening weekend:
1. Stick him on the IL and let him continue to ramp up in side sessions.
2. Use him in low-leverage situations only until the velocity comes back.
Veteran deference should only get you so far. Trotting him out to protect a ninth-inning lead, if he's sitting 90-91, is foolhardy. Every game is going to count; sacrificing one or two wins in March/April to be nice to your closer is a good way to shoot yourself in the foot in September.
Whether he's a 23 YO trying to make his first roster or a 33 YO established big leaguer, he's simply not ready to pitch in a high-leverage MLB situation. I hope Estevez proves me wrong and is sitting 94 Friday night, but I highly doubt it'll happen.
@sperrydaniel94 Armas was obviously embarrassingly unqualified when he was hired. Hopefully the Longs will soon figure out what the rest of us knew 3 months ago.
After a week of ‘this city is teal’ marketing I’m not going to say this is as embarrassing as hiring the only coach who managed to lose to SKC twice last year. But it’s close.
@Aaron_Torres This is silly. If he never plays another second in college he’s at worst the #3. Probably the #2. He finishes the game last night playing circles around Dybantsa he’s the consensus 1.
And the difference between all these is negligible