We haven't heard much blowback from the developer-endorsing "environmental groups" about this, but none of the champion trees being removed are dying. In fact, three of the 6 mature trees that will be removed have just been declared to be in "Good" health by an arborist. Two others are in "Fair" health, in no chance of dying anytime soon. One is in "Poor" health, but not in need of removal for health reasons. All will be removed for money-making reasons.
When you look at the specific trees being removed, they are the ones that give Westbard its leafy, suburban character. Looking at these pictures, you don't see the fabled "parking lots" or "outmoded retail centers." What you see is a substantial green canopy, which cleans the air, and also fits in with the nearby single-family homes.
 |
| CLICK HERE before voting, so you don't have the voter's remorse you did in 2014, when you were betrayed by the County Council on Westbard only 10 days after the election |
Most of all, there will be concrete, glass, steel and more concrete in every direction you look from the future Westbard Avenue. None of the streetscapes and green turf postage stamps in the development will feature mature trees, only the glorified twigs found around most new developments today. Federal Realty, in a very unusual move, paid extra to bring an actual mature tree to Rose Park at Pike & Rose. Will Regency Centers change their plans and do so as well? And then truck in five more? I'm not willing to bet any money on it.
 |
| #TFW you realize the "New Westbard" will be a hot hellscape of concrete and steel, and that you voted for the people who approved the plan |
PROPHETIC WARNING:
"We need a Councilman who doesn't get all weak-in-the-knees when a developer walks in the room."
- Robert Dyer, 2014
32 comments:
Robert Dyer is the Lorax
He speaks for the trees
Looking forward to it!
Won't they plant new trees once all the work is done? If they plant a couple extra, it will be a net gain in trees.
Also, I assume they will have to pay the MoCo tree tax just like I did when adding an addition to my house. At $300 per tree cut down, the County can plant plenty of replacement trees.
This is not old-growth forest, you fake environmentalist. These trees were planted at the time that the shopping center was built, so they're about the same age as you.
Also, none of those are "champion trees". Do you understand what that term actually means?
It's not old growth forest, but these trees are much more mature than the twigs and scrag bush that the developers will plant as replacements. A lot of the trees the developer wants to remove are between the sidewalk and roadway. The developer won't be building in that space anyway, so why does it need to remove the trees? This happens all over the county, by the way, not just in Westbard, so it's not so much a NIMBY issue as it is an overall permitting issue.
From your photos it is not clear which of those dozens of trees are the six that will actually be removed.
I note that several of the trees shown in Photo #5 are badly entangled in the utility lines. I wonder if they are the cause of the intermittent power outages in Westbard?
Trees are a fully renewable resource. Have you taken a stroll down Woodmont in Bethesda Row to see the wonderful shade tree canopy that has been established in only a decade or so. This is not to say that developers and landscape architects are always correct. Many propose very small caliper “token” trees that cost little, and are designed to avoid blocking retail signage. Many are planted in undersized wells that restrict root growth and tree size. The county has to insist on lots of stree trees, placed in large “engineered” soil, with appropriate irrigation. Open spaces that are not along streets should include large caliper trees that can flourish like those in your photo, and can should be surrounded with turf areas that allow growth. Where possible large landmark trees can sometimes be left in place, but often the stress of nearby construction can reduce their health.
So in summary, large trees are great, but if carefully planned, a new development can include places for parks and trees, well as cafes, restaurants, retail shops, apartments, condos, markets, offices, and underground or overhead parking. If you really want to live in a forest, or severely underutilized suburban density, you need to move away and let the rest of us enjoy our urban lifestyle. Or stay, and simply walk or ride your bike to the many large green areas, parks and recreation areas nearby to hug a big old tree.
@5:59 If the trees are between the sidewalk and the roadway, then the county will insist the trees are replaced after the project is done since it's in their right of way. We had to do this for our renovation (moved our driveway to where a tree was). The county inspector held up the final permit approval until the tree was planted, and they spray-painted a big X on the place where the tree was to be planted. They even specified the type of tree.
How do the trees at Springhouse (Photos #2 and #3) relate in any way to the proposal to redevelop the shopping center? What is the alleged "money-making reason" for which they will be removed?
The tree shown in Photo #3 appears to be posing a risk to the building.
"One is in 'Poor' health, but not in need of removal for health reasons."
So now Dyer is an armchair arborist.
Wonder if Bob the Builder Dyer realizes that expanding River Road will cause more pollution and possibly harm these beautiful "tall trees of Westbard"?
You are talking about six (6) trees.
What a drama queen.
A real problem, at least for the residents of Kenwood Place Condominium (situated above the rear of the Giant parking lot) is that we actually own the only green space and trees in the entire area, and already have to deal with neighbors who think of our property as their dog park. The developers of the Westwood shopping center site are providing only 1/3 acre of grass in the new plan which is a joke. Adding hundreds, if not more, new residents without providing any recreational space is really inconsiderate of the current residents and is a major reason why current residents resent and dislike the development scale.
Inconsiderate to the current residents, not of.
Totally agree with you here, Dyer - Real Estate developers call all the shots here.
Champion trees is a defined term you bozo. None of these are champion trees. This is a post that should never have been. And still we have a circa 1960 shopping center with acres of blacktop. Thanks Nimbys!
"Moribund trees" seems more accurate.
They will be cutting down the trees. What will happen to the "Westbard Squirrels" ? SAVE THE WESTBARD SQUIRRELS !!!!! Will help the Westbard Squirrels organize a protest march.
@ 5:59 AM said: "These trees are much more mature than the twigs and scrag bush that the developers will plant as replacements."
These trees were "twigs and scrag bush" when the previous developer planted them.
9:43am agreed. The Plan's lack of green space is a scandal.
No doubt residents of the new development will be desirous of Kenwood Place's small park.
5:42: The problem is that, even if they are required to plant or fund replacement trees, they will not be oak trees like this. They will be tiny, thin street trees. Even a true replacement would take decades to grow, and the pollution and heat effects would persist until then.
In many cases, the County collects a fee, and then plants new trees far away elsewhere in the County where they are of no direct benefit to our community.
7:33: These trees are nowhere near the River Road right-of-way, in which there is already plenty of room to expand the road to six lanes.
Dyer @ 7:29 PM
Why will the replacements not be oak trees?
Those trees started out their lives as "tiny, thin street trees".
Widening River Road to 6 lanes would require clear-cutting hundreds if not thousands of trees.
Look at Robert all worked up over climate change and the environmental effects of losing those couple trees!!
@1:04PM: Right, and it took years for those trees to mature. Why take a step backwards? If you like twigs and scragbush, then stay in Clarksburg.
Robert, did you ever contact Regency to find out why they want to remove those six trees?
Much of this conversation on both sides is overly hyperbolic, uninformed, premature and incorrect. As a community, we have the right to expect reasonable and smart development that is consistent with its desires and needs. I think this is still possible with respect to Westbard, but requires continued informed activism and a willingness to voice concerns. Dyer seems to blame everything on the County and "the developer-endorsing "environmental groups"" who he doesn't name. However, this is Regency's, the developer's, proposal AND it has not been and will likely not be approved in its current form. The county and planning staff have a pretty good track record on protecting trees, when possible, and requiring replacements when necessary. They will likely not grant the tree waiver as requested, especially if the community voices concerns and supports reasonable alternatives. It is possible to have both redevelopment and tree preservation, replacement, and enhancement. Interestingly Dyer was silent on a potentially more environmentally damaging part of Regency's proposal. They are requesting a waiver for over half of the stormwater treatment required by law for the area being redeveloped. There is no excuse for this and it should be vehmently opposed and rejected. I challenge Dyer to identify who "the developer-endorsing "environmental groups" he alludes to without naming are? The only environmental group I am aware of that has been fully engaged on this issue is the Little Falls Watershed Alliance and they have not ever endorsed the developer. Moreover they are actively challenging both the tree and stormwater waivers, among other things in the proposal. I find it amusing that Dyer is casting himself as as anti-development, environmental crusader, while running as a Republican and defending a President, Administration, Congress and Party that is hell bent on removing every piece of effective environmental law and policy enacted over the past century plus. Go ahead Rob, tell us how Scott Pruitt is doing anything positive for anyone, but himself and the fossil fuel industry. And Rob, do you really think that these six trees are going to protect us from global warming? OK, I guess I can be guilty of ranting also.
8:56AM - Thanks for a succinct summary.
"Interestingly Dyer was silent on a potentially more environmentally damaging part of Regency's proposal. They are requesting a waiver for over half of the stormwater treatment required by law for the area being redeveloped. There is no excuse for this and it should be veh[e]mently opposed and rejected."
Search for "RAIN TAX" on this blog and you will understand why.
8:56: When all else fails, scream, "TRUMP!!!!!!" Trump and Pruitt have zero to do with the County Council and Planning Board's capitulation to their developer sugar daddies. Yes, these six trees will protect us from a small percentage of the additional auto exhaust and noise the Westbard sector plan will bring to the neighborhood.
Interesting you bring up the LFWA. I seem to recall that in 2011, I was testifying in opposition to Little Falls Place and the scheme to sell a chunk of Little Falls Stream Valley Park to EYA for [Dr. Evil voice] "$500,000." A development right on the banks of the Willett Branch.
LFWA was backing EYA in that battle. They even wrote a letter to the Gazette attacking me.
I predicted at the time that none of the pie-in-the-sky promises being made would come to pass. Sure enough, the head of LFWA admitted in 2014 that they never received the funding promised for Willett Branch Stream itself.
I have been consistently for the neighborhood and the stream all along, as the record shows.
"If you don't stop lying about me, I'm going to start telling the truth about you."
9:17: Can you explain why you favor low-income and working class residents paying for stormwater management instead of the developers who are seeking waivers and making the profits? Let developers pay the rain tax - and for schools and roads.
8:56AM I'm not sure why my earlier response to Robert's response to my earlier post was not posted, but I'll try again. First of all, I didn't scream TRUMP and PRUITT. They were a minor point at the end of my post. AND, nothing else in my argument failed. Your quoted threat seems to suggest that I'm lying about something w/o stating what that might be. I stand by my post as 100% accurate. I had no involvment in the EYA case you raised, but your portrayal is inaccurate. First of all that case, the EYA case that I think you're refering to did not involve the Willet Branch, it involved the Little Falls Branch. There was no development right on the Willet Branch sold. Nor, do I believe, did it involve "selling a chunk of Little Falls SVP". My understanding is that it involved a waiver that reduced the buffer requirement on the EYA property so that they could build closer to the stream. My further understanding is that LFWA reluctantly accepted the waiver deal believing on net the compromise would provide net benefits. You are correct that LFWA was dissappointed in the ultimate outcome and learned from that experience. I only raised LFWA in response to your comment regarding "the developer-endorsing "environmental groups" you alleded to without naming. Since you still haven't named any of these groups, I challenge you again to identify who these alledged groups are or retract the accusation that they exist. Who are you talking about?
8:40: Wrong. EYA bought a piece of Little Falls Stream Valley Park so they could build an entrance to Little Falls Place off of Little Falls Parkway. They paid $500,000, which was supposed to be spent on projects that would benefit that location of the Little Falls Watershed. So the public has less parkland, and as the LFWA confirmed, the money ultimately never went to the stream. Would you believe the same developer the second time?
Wrong again: Load up Google Maps, and you'll see the words "Willett Branch" right alongside the Little Falls Place development. The development is within the stream buffer/riparian buffer. Most definitely not environmentally-sound development.
Resolving the question of which environmental groups aren't taking on Regency Centers is easy - they're the ones who aren't screaming and howling about the Regency Centers site plan application.
Post a Comment