What can be done when your homeowners association has no problem decimating local trees in the name of more development?
A Redditor hit up the r/treelaw subreddit to find out by proposing their own solution and asking for feedback.
As the poster described, their HOA was clearing out dense woodlands filled with trees to make way for new subdivisions.
Their first question was whether this sort of development could be regulated, requiring developers to save trees or plant new ones. In particular, they proposed putting new trees in the neighborhood to match the house's expected capacity. For example, if they were building a four-person unit, they'd plant four trees somewhere in the development.
They concluded by noting that ideally several "well-established" trees would be in the yards of residents, like they'd seen in another neighborhood. They admitted that the concept "while lovely isn't always realistic," and then suggested a woodland, park, or more strategic planting would be OK by them.
Before getting into the response on Reddit and the viability of the Redditor's proposal, it's worth noting that they were definitely barking up the right tree. Trees are enormously beneficial for the planet and us, as Harvard Health Publishing explained.
Trees provide shade on hot days per the EPA, give us a sanctuary from heat islands, and can help lower air pollution from cars. There's also the aesthetics of greenery, the benefits for kids as detailed by National Geographic, and the many animals that rely on trees, per the National Wildlife Federation.
It's no surprise that the HOA probably barely considered that, though. Unfortunately, many HOAs demonstrate a pattern of undermining and ignoring eco-conscious residents who want to save their neighborhood's trees.
This attitude extends to homeowners interested in rewilding, avoiding pesticide use, or putting native plants in their yards. If you've experienced any issues with your HOA, The Cool Down has a guide to working with them or taking them on, if necessary.
As for the Redditor's idea, fellow users jumped in with some clarifications and opinions.
"Lots of places have replanting and retention mandates for development," a Reddit user replied.
Another noted that in the appropriately named Woodlands, Texas, "every tree is accounted for."
As for the original poster's proposal, multiple users threw cold water on its viability due to cost and safety issues.
One user was blunt, writing, "Yeah, they totally can require that … but good luck getting it passed."
Join our free newsletter for easy tips to save more and waste less, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Cool Picks
