They took paradise and bull dozed it into something that will “increase property values”. [RANT!!!]

[Cleita]

Or so said the freeperish asshole on the John Deere who was clearing the property behind my house. Well, maybe if Wal-Mart wants to build here, I suppose. This started a few months ago when my queen bitch neighbor, who owns most of the property in this sector, and sits in her citadel on top of the hill, decided to subdivide and sell some of her property. She needed a new Lexus and had to find the money somewhere. :sarcasm:

So new owners arrived on the scene. First they cleared the chaparral and then started to cut down the trees in the eucalyptus grove. In the process the quail, the red tail hawks and peregrine falcons that had called this pasture home moved on. The flocks of song birds and red winged blackbirds are gone too. They have no place to live. I haven’t seen the deer, who often passed through here taking shelter in the grove, either. Only the coyotes seem to be left as I still hear their wails in the night and the carrion eaters feeding on the dead creatures left in the wake of the bulldozer. Of course the wind shield and watershed the trees and shrubs provided were compromised. It’s windier now and if we have ‘El Nino’ type rains, there will be a wall of mud descending on our property.

Since we have been having a drought the little bit of rainfall we have had hasn’t been enough to soak the eucalyptus, Monterey pine and Oak that were left and they are bone dry. I live in California in fire country. So what happens is that we get a little rainfall and the new owners brought in a contractor who piled all the dead vegetation that was accumulating into piles and set them on fire. I was really somewhat concerned yesterday because one of the piles wasn’t more than fifteen feet from my house. But then it started to rain so I felt better. Okay, it’s the country and people do this in the country with the proper burn permits.

So the fires died down and everything seemed okay last evening by twilight. Since I’m asthmatic I woke up in the middle of the night choking on the fumes of eucalyptus and sage. When I went to my window the piles of debris were glowing bright red. One of them started to flare up in flames and spark cinders. I watched for about an hour and they didn’t die down. Then I went out with a flashlight and couldn’t find anyone minding the fires. The contractors who were doing this had gone home! I called the fire department and they came out and moved some of the flaming debris away from my house. This was three in the morning.

The contractors were back today. The firemen came back and talked to them, then they talked to me and told me that they had proper permits, but were supposed to be through with the burn by 4 p.m. and they weren’t supposed to leave a fire unattended. So another DUer who is local sent me the rules for burns for our county. They were in violation of four of the rules. I printed out the rules and took them to the bulldozer driver with the rules he violated highlighted.

He was very nasty and demanded to know where I got the regulations and I replied that anyone who has a computer can get them on line. Then he told me how long it would take them to burn the piles of debris if they had to do it the way the county spelled out. Then I said why don’t you just remove it and truck it out. But that would be so expensive and burning is free he retorted. I replied it was either pay someone to be there or truck it out, his choice. Then I said if the new owners had a brain in their head they would plow it into the ground and let it compost, turning the clay soil into something that they could actually grow things in. The coming rain would speed up the composting process.

Then I left because if looks could kill this jerk was giving me one of those looks. That’s when he made the remark about improving property values. Anyway I am really pissed. I am a wilderness lover and these violations of Mother Nature's places just make me burn. Thanks for letting me vent. :grr:

[Gormy Cuss]

1. Burning EUCALYPTUS debris unattended?

Sheesh. The contractor sounds like a major league jerk.

[Cleita]

3. Yes, and bone dry eucalyptus debris. n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

15. Eucalyptus is toxic hallucinogen, right?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Cleita]

21. I don't think so, but you can use it in boiling water to clear your

sinuses if you have a cold. I am allergic to it when it's burning so I have to use an inhaler for it.

[Esra Star]

25. Wrong, but it does burn a treat.

[bobbolink]

2. Oh, Cleita! I'm so sorry. Here we are, reading about planting trees to reduce CO2,

while you witness more trees being --not just cut down, but BULLDOZED!

It's all so very unnecessary! I wish I could ride to the rescue!

I think I hear the land crying.....

:cry:

:hug:

[Cleita]

4. I know. This has made me sick. but I can't do anything about it.

The new owners have their own vision of what they want to do with the property and I don't think it's what Mother Nature would like.

[bobbolink]

9. It's so hard when there's nothing that can be done!

You've shown great restraint!

Somehow, I'm thinking about scenes from "Milagro Beanfield War"!

:hug:

[Leopolds Ghost]

18. I hate to say it, but if certain candidates/officials don't practice what they preach

how can we expect anyone else to follow their dictates?

Hell, I live in a "tree city" and all that ever happens
is forest trees get cut down -- and replaced by ornamentals.
No new tree cover gets planted. Humans are genetically
disinclined to live in, or near, the woods. Some old
predator-prey thing. I laugh at the "enlightened liberals"
in my neighborhood who think they've overcome superstition
and instinct, they host seminars on "overcoming violence"
and "is God a myth" only to bitch out city officials about
big trees posing a hazard to their house. Sweat out those
atavistic fears of nature, humans! Sweat out those
uneducated beliefs that were drummed into you when you
were a video-game playing toddler, like my neighbor's kid
once told me, that trees are inanimate objects, not living
things, and it's OK to break branches off them and bulldoze
them when they get in the way of your smooth asphalt surface!

[Cleita]

20. I think the worst plunder of the land I saw was in Montana, where

farmers had cleared out fields in the forest to plant grass to make hay.

[wryter2000]

5. I'm so sorry

Where are you in CA?

I live in Oakland. I swear, if the city allowed those bastards to do it, they'd mow down every tree in the hills and put house upon house upon house.

[Cleita]

6. I'm just down the coast from you in San Luis Obispo county near

Pismo Beach.

[Leopolds Ghost]

23. After the Oakland fire, the city/county/state required huge new fire lanes, asphalt, etc.

The Oakland Hills were completely paved over because of zoning laws mandating that they be made people-friendly and fireproof. The old, winding 2-lane roads were replaced with fire-truck accessible runways, and mature trees replaced by ornamentals, and old arts and crafts bungalows replaced by hideous "artistic looking" mansionettes for wealthy, crystal-gazing artists, scam artists, and media professionals of the lowest order.

[wryter2000]

39. Having lived through that fire

I understand the need to fireproof, but the mansions they put up there. Aaaaarrrggh! Have you seen the hoity development they put along Grizzly Peak? Those things have to cost 1.5 mil or more. And the folks who live in them don't want to send their kids to the Oakland schools (which I can understand), but they're too cheap to send the kids to private schools. They wanted Orinda to take their kids into the school system. Orinda said, "no thanks."

When we first moved in there, I didn't understand when people complained that the area was changing. After we'd been there a few years, I figured it out. Developers are a sub-human species, homo greedus.

I used to walk up there every morning. I'd watch the wild flowers with an eye toward gathering a few seeds. I did get some seeds before the city came through and mowed everything down. Some things I have in my garden in the flat lands are probably the only survivors of those plants.

[jilln]

7. I wish I had kept a photo...

I took it a few years ago. It was a proposed rezoning sign, and it said:

PROPOSED REZONING

From: Tree
To: Parking Lot

It was posted on one of the few trees left downtown in my city. Now it's a parking lot.

[Cleita]

8. I guess these jerks won't be happy until they pave every bit

of land left. These are the same idiots who get upset when bears and mountain lions start moving in because they have no where else to go.

[jilln]

10. Well that's because bears and mountain lions

are not humans and everyone knows we have more right to EVERYTHING than other animals. In fact, I can't believe you're even worried about bears and mountain lions.

(sarcasm)

[Leopolds Ghost]

27. We have more right to everything than Iraqis, which means

We haven't progressed to the point where nature is even on the radar
screen -- massacring each other is still OK, so long as it's done in
our name and not on TV.

Killing trees, or pumas, or even beating up homeless people
can be done in public without raising a stink, it seems.

Anyone who supports "improve property values" generally does not object.

[The Doctor.]

11. Simple solution;

Human Hunting.

We do it with other animals that reproduce beyond their limits.

[midnight]

12. Maybe it is time to bring Gore to your neighborhood and play

his unconvient truth. This is so sad to hear. Sorry.

[Cleita]

24. I really wish that movie was mandatory watching. Maybe it would

inform some of these people.

[mark414]

13. they took all the trees, and put em in a tree museum

and charged the people a dollar and a half just to see em

pave paradise, put in a parking lot

savages

[CrispyQ]

14. Many years ago when they started to develop the area west of my neighborhood,

the first thing they dozed was a beautiful hill of fields, cottonwoods & a couple of small streams. Someone (contractor paid?) wrote an article in the local paper saying that the foxes, hawks & other wildlife would actually like the developed area more because there would be more trees & not so much open space. I would have laughed if it weren't so fucking tragic. To this day, my husband & I drive by that development & comment on the number of foxes & hawks we see -- NOT. :mad:

I have a book of photos of Earth from a satellite & the cities look like cancerous rot on the land. Very sad.

I am so sorry about your situation. Boy, Joni had it right, huh? You don't know what you've got till it's gone.

[Cleita]

17. I wish we had laws on the books that would require people

who own acreage to keep wild life zones on their properties. We do it on our property. We plant the trees and build features to encourage wildlife. The problem though with the hawks is they like really tall trees to nest in and that's why they favor the pines and eucalyptus. We have a small grove on our property but I think it's too close to the road and they don't like being that close to cars going by all day.

[BlackVelvet04]

62. It's easy to have your property listed as a wildlife sanctuary and you

can get ideas on line. We are letting a good bit of our yard go back to nature. We have plants to feed the critters and water on the property for them as well.

I have a couple of hawks in the yard and am visited regularly by deer, raccoons, fox, all kinds of birds, squirrels, groundhogs, rabbits, etc.

A family member asked me what I was going to do to get rid of the crab grass. I let them know this isn't a subdivision with perfect lawns, it's the country.

[Cleita]

65. We do it on our property, but we don't have the optimum

condition yet for housing the raptors and the quail used to run all over the place, but they don't have the cover they need when all the brush is gone, so I haven't seen nor heard a quail recently and yet I used to wake up to their crowing every morning and when I worked in the garden, the hawks were always screeching overhead. Now, except for the frogs who were awakened by the rain, the place seems dead to any sounds of life.

[MadHound]

16. I'm sorry you're having to deal with this shit

It is because of uncontrolled development that I moved away from my home town and out into the country. It used to be a five minute drive from the center of the city to get into the country, now it is a good twenty minutes or more. And it is a real tragedy watching once beloved natural areas around the perimeter going under the bulldozer, one after the other.

So I moved out to the country, and absolutely love it. And yet the monster of development followed me. Down the road about a mile, a man and his wife who owned sixty acres and a house recently were divorced. She got the house, he got most of the land. So to be a complete dick, he wacked up the sixty acres into five acre plots and is putting houses out on them:grr: So now we're going to have a little exurb out here in the country. A real shame that I don't have an artillery piece in my front yard, it would solve this problem:evilgrin:

But we still have our animals and birds and wildlife, and I absolutely love watching them all. But there are some big farms around here, and I dread when the owners either die or get an offer they can't refuse. One reason that I'm hoping the housing market keeps going down while energy prices keep going up. I like the country and I want it to stay that way.

[Cleita]

19. I think we are going to have to make laws to keep development

confined to certain places in the future. We have to keep our wilderness areas habitable for it's denizens. There's no reason why we can't cohabitate with other species, but we need laws so dickheads like my new neighbors can't plow up established, wilderness friendly land.

[MadHound]

30. I hear you. At some point within the next five to ten years

I think I'm going to have to stand for the office of county commissioner for that very reason. Our county development laws are very wide open, and with a major urban area knocking on the door so to speak, all that fine rural land is tempting every developer within a hundred miles. It isn't an immediate problem, but will be in the near future. I want to get some laws in place to limit development and keep it sane.

[Cleita]

34. Development can be done if you integrate it with the existing

wilderness. I've seen it done in other places. I know that there are people who are afraid of the wildlife, but if they have a place to live and eat, they will often not bother with their human neighbors. Also, in the woods, there are neighborhoods just like we have. Certain species stake out their area and peacefully coexist with other species in the same area. When one dies then another moves in, just like we do. But when we make them homeless then they have to move into another neighborhood and either roust out the present inhabitants or start going into places they don't belong.

[truedelphi]

56. I'd be crying reading this

But have cried over similar situations for so long now that there just aren't the tears left

Sorry for your pain and your asthma being worsened by these fools

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. One of the few things I miss about California - Eucalyptus.

And, mockingbirds.

Moved to the Pacific Northwest 25 years ago - never regretted it - except for the Eucalyptus and Mockingbirds.

[Cleita]

26. I love the Northwest too, but I cry over the clear cuts. What's

the euphemism the logging industry uses, creating "temporary meadows"?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. We live in a rural area that's slowly becoming suburban.

We've been offered $$$thousands for our 2 acres of fir. But, if I wanted to live in Bakersfield we'd have moved there.

[Cleita]

36. Some people do take the money and their neighbors suddenly

find themselves without the tree views that they bought the property for. You could sell a few of the trees but insist that they do selective logging not a clear cut.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. Some do sell and then (stupidly) leave a few standing.

Which few last until the next big windstorm when they come tumbling down because they haven't the protection, and strength, of the ones that were cut.

[Cleita]

53. They shouldn't let them take those strong trees. Of course

they may not want the lesser ones but tough luck. You can just keep your trees then.

[truedelphi]

55. It does seem like the whole world is becoming suburban

And of course the sections that are old-timey rural can be condemned by some government entity or another and given away to WalMart

[alarimer]

37. I think the eucalyptus are non-native to California

anyway they burn like crazy. Probably at least part of the reason for the terrible fires in recent years.

I am in favor of removing non-native species whenever possible but it seems that the developers go completely overboard.

[Cleita]

38. Eucalyptus is an introduced species but it naturalized well

in our climate. Orange growers introduced it as wind breaks to protect the groves. But it adapted well and propagated itself as a wild species so it would be very hard to remove it and replace it with the native oaks througout California which are very slow growing. We are trying to replace our eucalyptus as they die with oaks and the native pines, however, none of us I'm sure will be alive when they reach maturity.

[alarimer]

49. I realize that it is too late to do anything about it I guess

We have a problem here with salt cedar (well in deep south Texas along the Rio Grande). It sucks up all the water and leaves the soil so saline nothing will grow. THAT was a brilliant idea, introducing those.

Kudzu is another one. Oops that got a little out of control.

[kineneb]

41. certainly are non-natives

If I remember correctly, the first eucalyptus trees were planted after the old-growth redwoods were logged out of the Bay Area, sometime in the late 19th century. Some "wise guy" thought that he could make a killing planting these fast-growing trees and then harvesting the timber. Unfortunately, the wood is completely useless for building timber: the grain is not straight and it is full of oil, so as it dries, it checks and cracks.

So the "wise guy" went bust, but not before the trees became invasive pests. They reseed easily, and the oils in the leaves kill off native species underneath the trees. Eucalyptus trees are a great fire hazard because of their oil content. And being non-natives, they have no natural pests here to limit their spread.

Mention eucalyptus trees to native plant people and watch them spew.

California Native & plant lover, Spew /off

[Cleita]

44. Because of the lack of pines and firs, they do perform a

function of providing nesting places for raptors and they also shelter and feed the Monarch butterflies, which I'm sure won't be around much this summer anymore since their homes are pretty much gone.

[truedelphi]

57. When I lived in Marin

First lived in Marin - these forest manager types from the National Park Service decided to declare war on the eucalyptus.

This was way back in '85 or '86.

I read through their Environmental Analysis, and they were saying how once the eucs were gone, the critters would just mosey along to the next patch of California oaks.

But Duh! Some of these patches of California oaks were like ten miles down the road. Is a baby owl going to even know that is where it should head? (And these experts often decide to play these games during nesting season!) Ditto the fox and squirrel, the deer etc.

Granted eucs are not native - but neither are SUVs. And I have yet to see a grove of SUVs nurturing such a passle of wild life.

[redqueen]

28. He was probably mad that you made him feel stupid.

Hope he learned some lessons... but it doesn't sound like he did.

:hug:

Hope you feel better...

[Cleita]

33. He look like a major freep redneck to me.

Now that I think about it the firemen might have given him a citation before I went to talk to him. I saw them hand him a piece of paper so maybe that's why he was mad.

[redqueen]

35. I don't doubt he was a freep...

who else would sing the praises of paving paradise for $$$?

[stubtoe]

29. Cleita, I can't believe they lit a burn pile 15 FEET FROM YOUR HOUSE!!

I'm amazed they didn't get a huge fine from the Fire Dept. They deserve all the holy righteous hell you can give them.

I'm so sorry for the loss of your wild place.

[Cleita]

32. Yes, and the regulations say that they can't burn anything

within fifty feet of the property line of a neighboring property or thirty feet from a residence. I saw the firemen hand him a piece of paper. Maybe it was a citation for violations. Also, the debris piles can't be more than six feet wide and four feet high and these were way bigger. Also, fires are to be out by 4 p.m. and not left unattended. He violated all those rules.

[SoCalDem]

40. My son (then 5) ran breathlessly into the house one morning.

MOM..MOM.. call 911..QUICK..

why?

he saw "men on bulldozers knocking down all the orange trees". He was sure a crime of the century was in progress..

what was happening was "progress" in all its ugliness.

He was near tears.. "MOM, there's ORANGES on those trees...how could they be KILLING them"?

My three little guys went over there that night and bagged up as many ripe oranges as they could find..and we had orange juice until we could stand no more.

That "cleared grove" stayed like that for months..with piles of dead/dying, still fruit-laden trees..until someone finally burned them..pile by pile.

It took YEARS until all those condo seeds grew up into ugly view-blocking monsters..

[Cleita]

45. What I don't understand is why the developers don't incorporate

the landscape trees they find into their development. I'm sure any future home owners would have been delighted to have mature fruit bearing trees on their property. The orange trees perfume the air in spring and provide shade in the summer that keep homes cool.

[Bright Eyes]

42. thats a real shame

i live in apt. complex so i have no control over the land. they're cutting down trees left and right. it's become quite barren

[Cleita]

43. We need some environmental laws and yesterday. n/t

[Nikki Stone1]

46. Couldn't the police do something about four violated rules?

I have friends in the San Bernardino area who have lived through a number of fires and it scares the hell out of me that they are leaving these trees unattended to burn.

[Cleita]

47. I'm in the county so it's the sheriff that's in control.

I thought I would try to talk to the new owners first before I sic the gendarmes on them. It's their place to put the contractor in his place. I'm sure the fire department has contacted them though.

[Nikki Stone1]

48. Normally, I understand being neighborly, but fires are a different story

This is a totally avoidable risk if the sheriff is involved.

I just feel so bad for you being so close to this potential disaster.

[Lisa]

66. plus, they'd be blaming everyone but themselves ...

... if there'd been an accident, and they'd ended up in court charged with reckless endangerment for setting fire to Cleita's house with her in it. I've dealt with people like that before, and it's always about them -- never mind anyone else. The most polite request or suggestion is laughed off (if they're in a good mood) or viewed as persecution (if they're not).

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

51. It's happening on a planetary scale

Just imagine the kind of broad scale destruction of the environment taking place in Brazil, India, Indonesia, and China. We have to do something to not only stop population growth, but to return population numbers to what they were a century or more ago. That, and cutting drastically down on the natural resources we use. Bush could have been a hero to the world by leading the way in using $500 billion to develop alternative energy. Instead, he chose to waste it in an illegal war and become the world's biggest piece of shit.

[Cleita]

52. I shake my head every day when I think of how things could have

been if Gore had taken his rightful place as our President.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

54. Once the entire world is bulldozed, asphalted, sub-divided, and

the property value "enhanced", where will these rich people including the developers go for a vacation? If dollars always take precedence over natural beauty, which they clearly do, I guess the rich can always sit in their luxurious houses and admire their paper money, but there won't be any more unspoiled places where they can enjoy their money.

[barb162]

58. The rich buy the unspoiled land for themselves

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

60. Unspoiled land is a finite commodity

becoming more rare every day.

[barb162]

61. Yeah, but you hear about movie stars and directors

(Spielburg, Harrison Ford, etal) buying thousands of acres in Montana and places like that. They want the wilderness for themselves

[Cleita]

68. Maybe it's okay if they can keep developers out.

I know Ted Turner owns thousands of acres of pristine wilderness in Montana for that very reason, to keep it from falling to developers and destructive extraction industries.

[barb162]

59. I empathize. And I feel sorry like hell for the animals

who lost their homes.

Because of this crap you describe happening all over, I naturalized my yard to a certain extent to make it a wildlife haven.

[Lisa]

63. I suppose those idiots would have been "very surprised" ...

... if the winds had come up in the wrong direction, and blown the fire towards your property. And declared that "we don't get wildfires in winter".

If there's an accident, those types of folks hardly ever blame themselves, I've noticed. It's always "unforseeable" (or better yet, somebody else's fault). They'd probably have rationalized it as YOUR fault for not waking up in time and evacuating the house. ("Serves her right for being a nosy hippie", etc. -- as the PBS documentary "The Fire Next Time" unfortunately showed -- though it wasn't a fire that did in the victim.)

Hope your asthma settles down, Cleita -- and that you get some satisfaction soon. Sounds like the authorities are on your side.

[Cleita]

64. There is a problem here because the wind can start up

suddenly and without warning and since the area is hilly, the canyons can create windtunnels.

[Lisa]

67. but of course, they live in such a fantasy world that it never occurs to them ...

They tend to make their decisions based on simplistic assumptions about how the world works ("it rains in California in the winter months", just as "we don't need to conserve water in British Columbia because it's so wet here"). And if a fire gets out of control, or if the reservoir runs dry because it hasn't rained all summer (as in Tofino last year), not only do they refuse to admit that they were wrong, but they claim that somebody else must have done this to them on purpose.

As you say, there's a definite danger -- you've lived in the area and you've observed the situation -- and I used to work in a fire research lab, so your concerns make sense to me. But I fear that those types are so stubborn that they could spend their whole lives there and never learn anything. (George W. Bush would fit in well with them!)

[Lorien]

69. I'm so sorry. I do feel your pain.

Years ago I lived in an environmentally sensitive apartment complex called "Oak plantation". It was indeed filled with ancient live oaks and surrounded by pine forest. The builders had been so careful that they had taken sections out of roof lines so that the huge oak branches of some of the oldest trees could pass through the apartments. But one day a wealthy developer bought our apartment complex and immediately started to 'renovate" it into a timeshare (forcing us out with 30 days, of course). Since Oak Plantation was in Florida, the developers decided that it should have a tropical beach theme (45 miles from the ocean). So the chainsaws and bulldozers were brought in and down came the oaks and pine forests-well before we all had a chance to move out. I remember watching one afternoon as one of the local tame squirrels worked feverishly to move her babies out of one tree that was being felled...but she moved them into another that was taken down a week later. I felt sick for ages afterwards.

I moved from there into a 1920's home in a historic district where I thought the old oaks were protected. Just two years ago the apartment complex behind my home (which was blocked from view by eight huge oaks) was damaged slightly by a fallen limb. The owner went nuts and cut down EVERY LAST TREE on the property. All the century live oaks are gone, along with a maple and several pines. Where once was greenery, now an oppressive two story cinder block monstrosity looms, it's painfully bright security light pointed directly at my home.

I don't know where one can go to escape the constant drone of chainsaws and bulldozers. The "freeperish" among us love to wage war against nature, and nature has been losing every where I turn. :-(

[Cleita]

70. That's awful and it takes about fifty years doesn't it for

an oak to mature. Fortunately, there is some protection for the really old ones around here. It's too bad you couldn't halt "progress".

[KoKo]

71. So many of us are living through this....It's really hard to deal with

and I worry about those who won't ever remember what nature looked like when it's all paved and condo'd over. What about the kids? No places to explore, trees to hide under when you just want to get away.

I see people putting up those fake "Tree Houses with Slides and swings"....but I never see kids playing in them in my neighborhood. It something parents put up, that's never used, but seems to be a status symbol to have. Busy kids, busy parents...maybe there's no need for green spaces or yards anymore. I'd hate to think that but in my area they are putting in condo's and houses with very little yards...and the builders say that busy families and empty nesters don't like all the work that goes into having a yard..they'd rather have a 4,000 sq. ft. house with a few feet of green and a neighbor's window 10 feet away than mow their lawn. It's :crazy:

Sorry you had to have this happen Cleita...:hug:

[Cleita]

72. That trend of a big house and practically no yard started in California.

Personally, I think it's to raise contruction costs with more labor and materials going into them. I can't imagine needing a different room for every activity. My children have a small three bedrom with living and den areas, yet they spend most of their indoor time in one of the bedrooms converted into an office that they have set up their enterainment equipment in. I asked why she doesn't use the family room anymore and she told me that it was to hard to heat. With rising energy costs they use a little space heater in the office and it works fine for them.

I have a small mobile that is 375 sq. feet which is almost too big for me. Our family spends most of our time outdoors gardening and playing with our pets. I feel bad that many children don't have that outdoor space anymore. The maintenance thing is also not true. You can landscape to have as labor free or labor intensive a yard as you want. We plant natives on most of our property because they require very little maintenance once established, then we do more labor intensive gardening on smaller plots.

[Nikia]

73. I don't know why developers feel the need to clear cut

Especially for housing. One thing that I hate about most subdivisions is that don't have many trees. In the new subdivsions, the only trees are little ones that the new owners just planted. I'd hate to have to wait several years to have decent size trees.
When my mother was married to her second husband (an evil corporate capitalist type who made a decent amount of money), they built a house in the woods. They bought a few acres, cleared enough for the house and a small lawn in front and back, and used the better hardwood trees for the built in book cases, cabinets, and the deck. A lot of the not so good vegetation of mulched up and used in the flower beds around the front of the house. Nothing was burned.
Their previous house was in a treeless subdivsion and they ended up planting around 20 little trees. My sister ended up having a serious allergic reaction to something that nearby developers burned and had to take steroids and anti hystimines because of it..

[Cleita]

74. I always wondered too. I imagine that it's harder to move in

equipment around trees than on a clear cut, but it seems to me to be a minor set back to the aesthetics of trees and I know it's do-able. I am always attracted to neighborhoods that have full grown, mature trees. What if the developers left the trees on new divisions? I think they would get better sales than on barren landscape developments.

My late husband worked for an architectural firm. His employers were sticklers for keeping natural features as much as possible on a building site. They even built a house over a creek, using the building as a bridge over it. The usual practice is to put in culverts or redirect the stream, but this one was left untouched and provided a feng shui sort of atmosphere in the residence.

In this particular house (which I loved incidentally), the landscapers incorporated all the mature trees that were there into their landscaping only removing a few dead and diseased ones. The final effect was breathtaking. The house, which was post and beam architecture, blended perfectly into the site and landscaping. The new owners were able to move into a house that Mother Nature would have been delighted to live in.

[Zookeeper]

75. I'm sorry, Cleita....

I understand that feeling of loss seeing more natural land ruined.

My neighborhood is older and developed, with patches of woods,wetlands and lakes, and until recently some nice natural high ground as well. Unfortunately, little pieces of it are being replaced with townhouses or a suburban office building. When the neighbors complained about the office building owner clearing a beautiful patch of woods, he said, "It's my land, I can do what I want," then he put up a Bush/Cheney '04 sign.

Land thought to be owned by the County is suddenly cleared. We even had some beautiful open hills flattened so the fundie college in our neighborhood could build athletic fields (on the condition that they be available to the public...an agreement they broke as soon as the fields were completed).

Aside from the fact that the new stuff being built is ugly and doesn't fit with our older neighborhood, I feel such a sense of loss every time I see those trees felled and the land covered. It's gone. The land is never going back to being natural....:cry:

I do think since they are endangering your health, you should be raising holy hell!

[Cleita]

76. Like I said we need laws to preserve what little wilderness we

have left. Sometimes you can get local environmentalists involved and sometimes they can find a way, especially if there is an endangered species involved or other damage that could happen from development. We were able years ago to stop a condo development on a lake in the northwest where a creek emptied into it.

It turns out the stream was the spawning ground for the salmon that the fishermen liked to catch in the lake. The salmon it turns out won't spawn anywhere but the stream they were spawned in. So the condo builder had to go elsewhere. Unfortunately in my case the wildlife isn't that endangered yet.

[Zookeeper]

77. Before I moved into the neighborhood....

Some neighbors tried to save the land that ended up used for townhouses. They contacted the Sierra Club and an attorney, without success. We are in an inner-ring suburb ten minutes from both downtowns (Mpls./St. Paul), so we aren't talking rare wildlife habitat and our woods are less than pristine (we're fighting a battle with invasion non-native buckthorn). But, it's precious to us, especially because we are in the middle of a metropolitan area. It's one of the few spots so close to the cities where one can still see deer, wild turkeys (!), owls, falcons, etc.

Of course the land, even a half an acre, is worth a fortune to developers.

I hope your neighbor will start to see the wisdom of your point of view about how to treat the land.

:hi: