“Foliage in abandoned neighborhoods is never in short supply.”
If a neighborhood has a very high ChaosScore™, will it have better or worse tree coverage than one with a low score?
We don’t have to measure chaos. HUD keeps track of rental housing. Will a community that is 75% renters have better foliage than one that is 25% renters?
Wicked easy, ain’t it? The renter analysis is actually better for understanding tree coverage – which is also racist, lesser minds argue. Trees are expensive, high-maintenance amenities, so all the reasons that make homeowners better about upkeep generally make them better about landscaping, too.
So again, not racism but location, location, location. If you prize wildlife, you pay with a longer commute. If you crave tree-lined streets with rolling lawns, you settle for less house for more money. If you want a lot of house for the least money – either as a homeowner or an investor – you buy where the renters are many and the trees are few.
Everything in economics is a trade-off. You could argue that the tenants in a treeless neighborhood have no better choices. The owners all do. Each one chose the home he bought according to his own hierarchy of values, weighing each material consideration by his own scale. If the home he bought does not yet correspond to his dreams, by fix-up or move-up, someday it can.
In other news:
The New York Post: Long Island man dodges eviction for 20 years, living in house he doesn’t own.
American Thinker: The shifting human tide.
The American Spectator: Florida: The Emerging Super State.
Townhall: Biden’s New Death Tax.
Politico: Some kids never logged on to remote school. Now what?
Anonymous says:
A person looks at the world and sees what they want to see. To wit, this post.
May 2, 2021 — 4:26 pm
Greg Swann says:
Specious claim made by an anonymous coward. Welcome to BloodhoundBlog. That shit don’t work here.
If you have an actual argument to the claims made here, put it forth. If not, concede your failure to defend your illusions quietly, please.
Note, too, that “a person” is singular and takes a singular pronoun – not plural. Thinking clearly starts with learning to count, even amidst a cacophony of lies.
May 2, 2021 — 8:16 pm
Brian Brady says:
@Greg Pronouns are fluid nowadays, don’t you know?
On a more serious note, from the linked article about tree cover:
The argument is that “we need to plant more trees for poor people” and the immediate solution is “we need to tell policy makers about this”. This claim and call-to-action is made in the name of “environmental justice”. These Marxists are now trying to define vegetation is a “human right”.
Why not? How easy it is to demand that armed men plant trees. But ask yourself this; how hard is it to plant the damned trees yourself? Find a “poor neighborhood”, show up with seeds, dig a hole, and drop seeds into it. What’s the problem?
Maybe…the homeowner doesn’t WANT a tree on her front lawn because the roots get into pipes, the branches mess up the roof, etc, etc, etc. What is the Marxist’s solution to that? Send armed men and FORCE those people of color to accept the gift of planted trees.
I never get tired of ridiculing this madness
May 3, 2021 — 3:53 pm
Greg Swann says:
As Odysseus points out, tree coverage is never a problem in abandoned neighborhoods.
May 3, 2021 — 5:32 pm