A Different Argument for the Trees

There are all kinds of reasons why the trees should remain... until you get to the incontrovertible fact that beneath those trees is a sewer system that is poisoning our lake (and our water). That sewer system needs to be redone. I love trees, and I'm sure I'll cry when they're gone (no kidding), but how exactly do you propose fixing/replacing the sewer for the long haul without removing them? Cutting away half their roots means they're dead. (Tortured, on the way to dead, if you ask me.) 

Trees grow back. And boulevard trees don't last forever -- it's just the way city living goes, I'm afraid.

I live on Fourth Street; there is a magnificent tree in front of our house. But we have had two water main breaks in the last month. I love, love the trees, and if there's any way to save them, great. But I agree with HBH, that we have to think of the health of our city, its residents, and of our lake too. I am just glad there are, on my blocks, trees in front yards too, so it won't be a complete deforestation.

I think we can all agree that it's awesome to have trees, and new construction should make an effort to keep existing trees. However, depending on the project, saving the trees can come in conflict with the goal and/or available resources. It's all an exchange, and you just have to figure out if doing a good thing (bike lanes, sewer and road repair) is worth the cost of the bad thing (removing trees). I'm sure the people working on this project discussed many plans for how to move forward with this project, and found the one that best worked for that area.
If we want to keep every tree, that requires us to give up on maintaining roads, sewers, and other infrastructure. It also limits what improvements can be made for accessibility and alternative transportation. Instead of the city spending money on improving the Fourth Street corridor, they'd spend much more keeping the trees by having to duct-tape rather than fix the roads and sewers.

Brilliant  Emily, thank you.  I appreciate your intellect and perspective.   It seems there could be a case made for financial savings as well.  This type of model should be easy, yet time consuming to graph and illustrate.  Sometimes when we are found in a quandary of conflicts creative answers and reasoning is just what's needed.

I reckon the next reasonable step would be to ask how one could put this inquiry into further action. Perhaps someone within the public safety network could assist.

There seems to be some organizing under way. A "Stand by Your Tree" event is planned for Oct. 26.

The cynical side of me has concerns about that study. Is there more information or a paper on it describing methodology? Correlation does not equal causation, and in this case, the existence of trees/shrubbery (or lack of) is not necessarily the reason for the differences in crime. What other factors about a neighborhood would mean more or less trees/landscaping that would also mean more or less crime?

I have to completely agree with HBH1, I love trees probably as much or more than most people.  However our failing and antiquated infrastructure needs help and has needed help for a long time.  Unless you're a fan of raw sewage backing up in your house or broken water mains in winter, then the trees are an unfortunate sacrifice we must make.  The city has done a very nice job of replacing trees on neighborhood streets after the construction is complete.  Hopefully in 50-100 years, no one will even know they were gone.

If the huge trees on 4th street go, my view of the lake from 5th street is gonna be awesome. 
Just kidding, just kidding.

It will definitely change how that stretch of road feels, but I also think it's unfortunate but necessary.

Two updates: 



The Duluth News Tribune covered the event on Sunday -- "Fourth Street residents stage a campaign for their canopy."

And now there's a 4th Street Trees Facebook page.