Humans Speak Up For The Trees

Have these folks approached the Urban Resources Initiative about expanding its tree-planting programs to Hamden?

And lest this be seen solely as a concern of tree-huggers, healthy street trees increase property values.

It is both astonishing and disgusting to me how the trend in CT is to cut down all trees, regardless of their age/health/size... for the sake of rolling out that green carpet, with the token 3 foot x 18 inch diameter shrub, and off course the solitary bird feeder - which is not actually used.

Coming from Brooklyn NY over 30 years ago, I am starting to think that the New Yorkers understand and appreciate trees more than the people living outside the Big Apple.....

Had to laugh when new neighbors up the street cut down ALL their trees [*which angered me beyond measure, but it is their property....] wondered why their house was so boiling hot this past summer, they asked me about my house and I replied " See that, the trees ?? I get natural shade in the summer, also a natural noise barrier from Rt 34" and they looked at me as if I was insane....

So sad....

In line with this story, I remember years back when the utilities decided to cut down all the trees on city property in my neck of the woods for the sake of G-d knows why, the next day in the late morning I had a very sad and confused raccoon wandering about in my driveway.
I knew immediately what was wrong, his home was destroyed... and he just needed to figure things out, which he did after spending the entire day sleeping in one of the cat houses on my little piece of property.
Eventually, he figured out where he needed to move on to, but I felt good that I could help this little guy out.

I'm waiting for the day that tax incentives are announced for those who cut all their trees down.
Then once we can't breathe, these same foo's will wonder why that is...................

G-d Bless the Tree Huggers !!
Without trees, we do not exist.

UI executives generally own homes in outer suburban areas, which are decreasing in value. Big suburban homes also use more electricity.

Urban neighborhoods such as most of New Haven and parts of Hamden (i.e., areas with sidewalks and street trees) are rising in value much more quickly, and their homes are generally smaller and use less electricity.

The attack on street trees seems to be a conspiracy by UI executives to devalue urban neighborhoods, so that their property values can increase again, and so that they can sell more electricity.

The urban towns should demand a mitigation plan, so that funding is set aside for 10 new street trees to be added and maintained for every one that is removed.

The utility companies decided decades ago that it was cheaper to put all the lines on poles, rather than underground.
You have to wonder at the costs the companies have incurred since then in repairing downed poles and wires and now cutting perfectly good trees and leaving them looking wounded.

The story is more complicated than several commentators suggest.

I staffed the legislature's Energy Committee when the tree-trimming rules were changed. The changes followed the Halloween snowstorm and subsequent storms, which caused widespread power outages. The outages, which in some cases went for a week or more, were largely caused by falling branches and trees. While UI and NU supported the tree-trimming changes, they were ultimately motivated by constituents calling their legislators. In the view of many people (including me), the initial changes went too far and were subsequently reined in.

I have all sorts of issues with the electric companies. But they make zero profit on their tree-trimming programs. Their costs (primarily labor) are expensed without a markup. In contrast, the companies can make a rate of return (profit) on their capital investments, e.g., the distribution system itself.

Undergrounding distribution lines makes eminent sense in some cases, e.g., in new developments. But in urban areas such as New Haven and southern Hamden, the cost of undergrounding is over $1 million per mile (New Haven has about 225 miles of streets.) Ratepayers would pay these costs.

In addition, the only place to put the lines in urban areas would be under the street. (Trenching in the tree belt would compromise if not kill the trees there.) Beyond the cost, this would tear up the streets for extended periods.

Planting trees, particularly in urban areas, has all sorts of benefits. And there are all sorts of opportunities for planting trees (ornamentals under distribution lines, taller trees elsewhere). URI has done excellent work in this area. And it makes sense to require UI to prioritize dead and dying trees that jeopardize distribution lines (there are lots of these). But so long as there are trees in close proximity to lines, they will cause outages.

FWIW, I have no connection with UI or NU.

We can and should move power lines underground. If most of Europe -- with vastly older buildings then ours -- can do it, so can we. There are sizable direct costs, for sure. The indirect and long term gains outweigh these. This movement requires political will. I am grateful for the advocacy of Hamden Alliance for Trees (HAT), and I hope to see a sister movement in New Haven. Let's do this!!!

anonymous: As Kevin said, the power companies are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Suburban areas have also seen aggressive tree trimming and removal, all due to pressure from those bothered by power outages. Personally, I am fine with losing power for a few days, even weeks, if it means more trees. A lot of folks, however, like electricity more than I do, and so have blamed the utilities for power outages that are precipitated by acts of God. In my own tightly packed shore neighborhood, many of my neighbors have cut down their own trees, and lobbied the town for permission to remove trees in the town's right-of-way to limit danger from trees falling on both power lines and houses.

As for public policy, I notice many new buildings in New Haven are built right up to the sidewalk. There's the new downtown high schools, and when I drive Frontage Road/MLK Blvd and Legion Ave. I note fields with trees are being replaced with claustrophobia inducing buildings built with no room for trees between the road and the sidewalk/building. It seems the city zoners, as well as the ultilities, are anti-tree.

Rachel, assuming citywide undergrounding, the "sizeable direct costs" come out to more than $1,700 per person. And ratepayers would still be on the hook for the undepreciated costs of the aboveground systems.

Public utility commissions (the agencies that decide this issue) from across the U.S. have analyzed this issue and have found that costs generally outweigh the benefits. The California PUC did require undergrounding of existing lines in 1982. But this requirement applies in a small proportion of cases, e.g., along scenic roads. Lines serving new subdivisions in California have to be buried. But as you know, new subdivisions are very rare in New Haven.

Distribution lines are routinely buried in Europe for the same reason why lines are buried in downtown New Haven and in Manhattan - density. As you likely know, urbanized areas in Europe are far denser than most U.S. urban areas.

Undegrounding makes sense in some circumstances, even for existing lines. But one circumstance where it does not make sense is in areas prone to flooding, including parts of the East Shore. The water seeps into the underground vaults and fries the circuits.

With invasive species of insects (emerald ash borer, etc.) and climate stress we will be losing more trees to disease as well.

First, thank you Big George Waters for your kindness towards the displaced raccoon (and the cats). My neighborhood in Ct had most trees cut down by U I, leaving unsightly tree stumps everywhere. One day I went out and when I came home later that day 6 beautiful, healthy trees were gone on my street. I now live in Delaware and trees are valued here. Delaware is the lowest-lying state in the U S, and lots of wetlands, rivers and lakes here, but I have not seen one flooded street or road here. My HOA has bioswales, too, along with ponds.There are large bioswales next to most parking lots and trees planted along them. My HOA has 20% tree canopy, which is the goal for the state. The State gathers acorns and has them planted to raise oak trees, which are transplanted in areas needing more trees. The State gave my HOA over 30 small trees last year to have planted in areas without trees. And we never have power outages where I am - our wires are underground. My place has a tree care company, which monitors the health of our trees and prunes them to a nice shape, not hacking them like the electric company in Ct does. We also have a mix of trees, so if one variety is susceptible to insects, like the ash borer, we have other varieties and similar trees are not planted close together, In Delaware, we value our trees, and we can have reliable electricity, too. Any company treating or pruning trees has to have an arborist on staff - in Ct "tree care" companies are mostly tree removal companies. It is sad that there is such a "war on trees" in Ct. Once a mature tree is gone, it takes decades to replace.

This completely sums it all up, and could not have been said any better:

[...in Ct "tree care" companies are mostly tree removal companies. It is sad that there is such a "war on trees" in Ct. Once a mature tree is gone, it takes decades to replace.]

I don't know what is more disgusting - how true this statement is - or how the masses are surprisingly ok with this war on trees.....

Once the masses start complaining about breathing issues, things will really start to get interesting.