,
17 tweets,
7 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ 🚨🚨 City is trying to cut down 52 perfectly healthy big trees on 24th btwn Mission and Potrero. This would denude the entire corridor. The reasons on signs appear to be total bullshit. Protest before or at hearing 6/1. @SFUrbanForester @HillaryRonen @LondonBreed @sfmta_muni 
2/ WHY PROTEST TREE CUTTING? Well, they preserve precious habitat, reduce stress, help air quality, and even reduce crime. As a resident of SF/Mission I want all those things! motherjones.com/environment/20… @MLNow @missionmission @CurbedSF
3/ Cities need more trees. Sure, cut down things that are diseased, or dangerous, but it should be a damn high bar to cut down 52 mature (!!!) trees in a busy corridor of a few blocks. motherjones.com/environment/20…
4/ Trees are probably the #1 easiest, cheapest way to reduce carbon. They also mitigate other forms of pollution. We should plant more trees everywhere, but ESPECIALLY in cities motherjones.com/environment/20…
4/ "Trees lining California’s public streets contribute about $1 billion annually to the state’s economy—nearly $111 per tree." SPEAK FOR THE TREES motherjones.com/environment/20…
5/ San Francisco, hypocritical on so many things, is THE WORST about trees. As in, our city has fewer trees than most others. AND CONTINUES TO CUT DOWN TREES FOR BS REASONS CC @sfpublicworks and chairwoman Carla Short. sfchronicle.com/bayarea/articl…
7/ Yes, I know that ficus aren't the best trees for (too narrow) cities. a) They can be very dense, and b) the roots can buckle the sidewalks. But a) can be addressed by thinning and b) not so on 24th.
8/ Like one fucking tree fell on some parked cars a year ago and the city wants to cut down 52 (was going to be 77!) trees. IT IS NUTS sfexaminer.com/the-city/city-…
8/ THE CITY HAS EVEN SAID IT COULD JUST THIN THESE TREES sfexaminer.com/the-city/city-…
9/ This lays out the city's case. True, if you could time travel 50 years back, you'd plant a different species. But razing all the trees at once rather than staggering and/or maintenance seems foolhardy. And the city has a terrible track record missionlocal.org/2019/04/city-m…
10/ How bad is the city's track record on trees? Glad you asked: sfexaminer.com/news/plant-som…
11/ BTW, there are a lot of non native trees that probably SHOULD be cut down, like the varieties of eucalyptus that are invasive and inject salts into soil, killing other trees and plants. These are not those.
12/ Supposedly, original reason for cutting trees was fire hazard. (Mission fires are not tree related.) Reasons listed signs are now... moving bike racks (?), streets signs (trim), bus stops (ditto) and other total BS reasons. Hearing 6/5. More info/comments 415-554-6700.
13/ What this is REALLY about is that we passed a ballot initiative to make street tree maintenance a city responsibility and not that of owner of property behind tree. Cheaper to cut than trim, or cut sidewalks.
14/ Who should protect the trees? We all should. The city, the property owners, the renters, the techies. Should every tree be left alone, no. Should we massively and collectively invest in trees in SF and everywhere, FUCK YES.
15/ So in conclusion: Plant trees, help trees, fight for trees. If you live in SF, please consider a donation to @SFUrbanForester, which does god's work planting and tending to urban trees. Similar orgs in every city, or if not in yours, start one. fuf.net
