PDA

View Full Version : NYC: A Shady Plan by the Mayor That’s Likely to Be Popular


Jularc
Apr 22, 2007, 7:28 AM
A Shady Plan by the Mayor That’s Likely to Be Popular


By RAY RIVERA
April 22, 2007

Among the list of contentious proposals that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is expected to announce today in his ambitious effort to steer the city toward a greener future, here’s one that is likely to receive little argument: more trees.

The city intends to plant a million trees during the next 10 years, filling every sidewalk vacancy with one and adding thousands to parks and public spaces.

City planners say the additional trees will help clean the air, soak up ozone-depleting carbon dioxide and make the city a little bit cooler in the summer, reducing energy demands.

“We believe this is the most ambitious tree-planting program ever undertaken, certainly by any American city,” said Daniel L. Doctoroff, the deputy mayor for economic development and rebuilding.

The proposal is one of 127 initiatives that the mayor’s staff unveiled yesterday in a briefing with reporters at City Hall. The briefing was held on condition that only the tree-planting proposal be revealed until Mr. Bloomberg announces the full plan in his Earth Day speech today at the American Museum of Natural History.

The plan will provide specifics on achieving and paying for each of the measures, which are intended to ease traffic congestion, increase affordable housing, reclaim contaminated land and improve mass transit as the city prepares to make room for an estimated 1 million new residents during the next two decades.

A key objective is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent by 2030.

Despite Mr. Bloomberg’s efforts to keep the details secret, many elements of the plan have leaked out in recent days, including a controversial measure to charge drivers to enter the busiest areas of Manhattan. Another proposal calls for the creation of an authority to finance major infrastructure improvements and, in the process, wrest some control over large-scale projects from agencies like the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the Empire State Development Corporation, over which the city has little say.

Few people, however, are likely to object to another tree on their block, especially in areas where concrete overwhelms any hint of green.

The city estimates it has about 5.2 million trees, covering about 24 percent of the five boroughs’ land mass. The national average for cities is about 27 percent. A little more than 592,000 of New York’s trees are planted along the street, and the city would like to increase that number by 210,000 during the next decade.

Joshua Laird, assistant commissioner of planning for the city’s Parks and Recreation Department, said it will cost about $37 million annually to plant and maintain 1 million more trees.

In addition to cleaner air and reduced energy demands that new trees would bring, Mr. Laird said they also would capture more storm water runoff, reducing pollution in the rivers.

The plan also would require trees to be planted at new developments.

Officials said they hope the program will stop the city’s long history of losing trees to development. Between 1984 and 2002, New York lost some 9,000 acres of vegetative cover, according to city estimates.

“If you think about the history of New York City,” Mr. Doctoroff said, “this fundamentally reverses the history of deforestation that has taken place pretty much since the city was settled.”


Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/nyregion/22mayor.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin)

Comrade
Apr 22, 2007, 7:31 AM
God I hate terrible puns in headlines.

brian_b
Apr 22, 2007, 6:31 PM
The pun was bad, but the plan is good. More trees is good.

What I don't like is saying "We believe this is the most ambitious tree-planting program ever undertaken, certainly by any American city". Come on, planting 1 tree for every 8 residents? Certainly you could find plenty of cities that beat those numbers.

But whatever, more trees in NYC is definitely a good thing.

hauntedheadnc
Apr 22, 2007, 7:30 PM
Sounds fantastic!

NYguy
Apr 22, 2007, 8:11 PM
God I hate terrible puns in headlines.

Then you'll love this one....:)

(NY Post)

MIKE: APPLE TO LIMB-ER UP

By FRANKIE EDOZIEN
April 22, 2007-

In 10 years, every block in the city will be tree-lined if Mayor Bloomberg has his way.

A plan to plant 1 million trees in the Big Apple will be part the massive global-warming blueprint Hizzoner unveils today.

He proposes to more than triple the tree-planting budget to $37.5 million to achieve the million-tree goal by 2017.

They would be planted along streets, and in parks and vacant lots - "every single place where it is possible to plant a street tree," vowed Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff yesterday.

Bloomberg will announce the rest of his "PlaNYC: A Greener Greater New York" proposals, which will include clean air and transportation initiatives, this afternoon.

NYguy
Apr 22, 2007, 8:14 PM
I have no doubt the city can do it. When I was living in the Bronx, the city was very aggressive in planting trees. Even on my old block in Queens where the city cut down all the older trees, new ones were planted. It would be great to have every block tree lined, though I'm not sure Manhattan is the place for it. Barley enough room for the people on those sidewalks...:)

HurricaneHugo
Apr 22, 2007, 8:36 PM
I was wondering why this plan was shady...

now i get it >_>

miketoronto
Apr 22, 2007, 8:46 PM
That is good news. I was actually just talking with someone concerning NYC and how it does lack greenery. So the more trees the better, to balance out all the concrete and brick.

OhioGuy
Apr 22, 2007, 9:10 PM
Great news! Maybe they should plant apple trees since this is the Big Apple we're talking about. In the summer time, the homeless would have free food to eat! ;)

(though I'm having images of rotten apples smashed all over the sidewalks, lol)

LosAngelesSportsFan
Apr 22, 2007, 9:44 PM
The pun was bad, but the plan is good. More trees is good.

What I don't like is saying "We believe this is the most ambitious tree-planting program ever undertaken, certainly by any American city". Come on, planting 1 tree for every 8 residents? Certainly you could find plenty of cities that beat those numbers.

But whatever, more trees in NYC is definitely a good thing.

not to mention Los Angeles announced a million trees initiative about 6 months ago.

Qaabus
Apr 22, 2007, 10:42 PM
ozone-depleting carbon dioxide
wow, just wow. :rolleyes:

cornholio
Apr 22, 2007, 11:39 PM
^carbon dioxide is depleting our ozone?
learn a new thing every day I guess, thanks to our reliabel, accurate, and trust worthy news papers, if they say its so then its gotta be true.

ardecila
Apr 22, 2007, 11:43 PM
New York - 25 percent tree cover.
Chicago - 11 percent tree cover.
Los Angeles - 18 percent tree cover.

How in hell can we call ourselves "Urbs in Horto" when EVEN LA has more trees than we do?

Via Chicago
Apr 23, 2007, 12:17 AM
New York - 25 percent tree cover.
Chicago - 11 percent tree cover.
Los Angeles - 18 percent tree cover.

How in hell can we call ourselves "Urbs in Horto" when EVEN LA has more trees than we do?

thats pretty pathetic...i was wondering where we stood.

pico44
Apr 23, 2007, 12:27 AM
The pun was bad, but the plan is good. More trees is good.

What I don't like is saying "We believe this is the most ambitious tree-planting program ever undertaken, certainly by any American city". Come on, planting 1 tree for every 8 residents? Certainly you could find plenty of cities that beat those numbers.

But whatever, more trees in NYC is definitely a good thing.


So you measure ambition on a per capita basis? Thats kind of funny. So according to you, if St. Louis were to plant 55,000 trees that would be every bit as ambitious as New York planting one million trees. I repeat: ONE MILLION TREES! For a city that is already a very green one, this sets a fantastic precedent for the rest of the country.

LMich
Apr 23, 2007, 4:37 AM
Sweet! I'm a huge fan of greening cities, and that a concrete jungle like NYC is doing this is great.

arbeiter
Apr 23, 2007, 12:20 PM
Just one tree on a block makes a huge difference. My 3rd floor bedroom window overlooks a tree which is just beginning to bloom, and while the pigeons who hang out there annoy me early in the morning, it's one of those great things that can never carry a price tag.

A reason why LA and NY might have more trees than Chicago: I don't think Chicago has within its city limits a very large park that is mostly unmolested and in natural form. New York has the large Jamaica Bay estuary area, Flushing Meadows Park, and Van Cortlandt Park among others. And LA probably is counting the trees in all of the foothills which cannot be developed much further than they are now.

Via Chicago
Apr 23, 2007, 4:30 PM
A reason why LA and NY might have more trees than Chicago: I don't think Chicago has within its city limits a very large park that is mostly unmolested and in natural form. New York has the large Jamaica Bay estuary area, Flushing Meadows Park, and Van Cortlandt Park among others. And LA probably is counting the trees in all of the foothills which cannot be developed much further than they are now.


I was thinking the same thing...it makes sense.

and i agree trees make a world of difference in the summer. we used to have many majestic old treets near our house, but unfortuntely many have come down. we had at one point probably 4 100 year old+ trees that gave us shade in the back, but they all got too dangerous to keep up. the last one is coming down from our neighbors yard this summer. our house is going to be like a sauna :( . there are still 2 old ones out front, but who knows how much longer they have.

LosAngelesSportsFan
Apr 23, 2007, 5:47 PM
the trees counted would be the urban forests, so i dont think the trees from the mountains and hills count.

Alliance
Apr 23, 2007, 7:36 PM
God I hate terrible puns in headlines.

:haha: Yes. Sounds like a great idea.

brian_b
Apr 24, 2007, 1:09 AM
So you measure ambition on a per capita basis? Thats kind of funny. So according to you, if St. Louis were to plant 55,000 trees that would be every bit as ambitious as New York planting one million trees. I repeat: ONE MILLION TREES! For a city that is already a very green one, this sets a fantastic precedent for the rest of the country.

ONE MILLION TREES! All it takes is money, and NYC has the largest city budget in the country.

I was just pointing out that I don't consider this to be ambition on the scale that this article implied. I'd be a lot more impressed if Newark planted a million trees.

MonkeyRonin
Apr 24, 2007, 2:12 AM
More trees in the boroughs or on rooftops would certainly be nice, but I think Manhattan is fine the way it is. Not only are many sidewalks too narrow, but trees would take away the charm of areas like this:

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/3723/amerika3ry4.jpg

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/6914/amerika10sm4.jpg

Couldn't imagine Times Square being covered in trees either.. that's look ridiculous.

pico44
Apr 24, 2007, 2:57 AM
ONE MILLION TREES! All it takes is money, and NYC has the largest city budget in the country.

I was just pointing out that I don't consider this to be ambition on the scale that this article implied. I'd be a lot more impressed if Newark planted a million trees.


Huh? You aren't making much sense. So go ahead and point out all the projects of greater scale out there. I'll be waiting.

The article actually got it right, this project is very ambitious, and hopefully very influential in the long run. I'm not saying any other cities should have to plant ONE MILLION TREES, but there is no doubt that making our cities greener makes them healthier and prettier.

Buckeye Native 001
Apr 24, 2007, 4:04 AM
not to mention Los Angeles announced a million trees initiative about 6 months ago.

New York follow L.A.'s lead on something? Surely, you jest. ;)

Seriously though, the more trees planted in any city anywhere, the better.

pico44
Apr 24, 2007, 5:38 PM
New York follow L.A.'s lead on something? Surely, you jest. ;)

Seriously though, the more trees planted in any city anywhere, the better.


LAs plan was hastily announced and poorly thought out. It relies almost completely on the innitiative of those outside city hall, and casually dismisses the fact that LA sits in what is essentially a desert. I doubt very much we'll see a million new trees in LA. Now I also doubt we'll see a million in New york, but I suspect it will be more than any other city can manage for a while. It seems as if Bloomy is quite serious about mobilizing on these issues. very exciting.

LosAngelesSportsFan
Apr 24, 2007, 6:07 PM
This notion that LA is a desert is bafffling to me. Downtown LA gets an averge of 15 inches of rain a year, the surrounding foothills and valleys get more than 25 and some of the foothills get over 40 inches a year. Anyways, the plan was to plant native trees all over LA, with Oaks, Sycamores etc, and no more palms planted by the city.

Vtown420
Apr 24, 2007, 9:26 PM
LA is semi-arid, but it is not a desert.

New York - 25 percent tree cover.
Chicago - 11 percent tree cover.
Los Angeles - 18 percent tree cover.

Where did you get this information?

I wish my city would plant 1 million trees. There are so many new neighborhoods with little or no trees, it makes me sick. I can’t even imagine owning a house with no trees. Trees are very important to my quality of life.

wong21fr
Apr 24, 2007, 9:34 PM
Hell Denver's Mayor announced a plan to plant 1 million trees in 20 years in 2005 (we've currently got a tree canopy of 10%):

http://www.greenprintdenver.org/

Stop copying us NYC! ;)