• panchzila@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Trees are a luxury, growing something like that takes time. I hope they really have a good reason for doing what they did.

    • torknorggren@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      The reason is probably “raking is work.” I see this shit all the time in Florida, where we really need more shade trees.

    • AshDene@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      And a public good. They keep things cooler when it’s really hot out, keep things warmer when it’s really cool out, mildly improve air quality, reduces noise pollution, provide measurable mental health benefits, and so on.

      Around here removing big trees is illegal, on your property or not. I’m a fan.

      Open soil instead of pavement also helps reduce flooding during heavy rainfall since the ground absorbs water instead of just making it run off to somewhere else.

    • socphoenix@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Considering they also took out the shrubs I’m betting not, though that tree closest to the house the roots may have been affecting the foundation I guess.

  • ShlorpianMafia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It legit looks like half of the weed dispensaries in my city. Who tf would actually do that to their home tho

    • dismalnow@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I feel like the car in the picture is important context. I’m thinking that the home was turned into a business, and the pavement is for parking

    • Striker@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Capitalism has drained their soul. They don’t think artistically. They don’t think about nature. They don’t see beauty. Their art is corporate art.

      • Rayquetzalcoatl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Man I don’t know, that’s weird. Maybe they just prefer it this way? Some people don’t like the cottage/nature kind of aesthetic. I think their house is ugly as sin but it’s just a matter of personal taste.

        • justhach@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thats okay, but then why buy a cottag-y in nature house and then change it instead of buying something more fitting from the get go.

          Even if the house was a good bargain, I cannot imagine the added cost of tearing out all those trees, paving the front yard, and remodeling/updating the interior would be cheaper than just buying a house that was already like that.

  • RandoMcGuvins@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just steal the image and put the source in the body text. That way you’re not redirecting everyone to reddit. Sort of defeats the purpose of the protests.

  • axtualdave@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s like they heard lawns were bad for the environment, but stopped listening at the part about replacing it with native plants.

  • jg1i@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I personally don’t like it, but I respect their right to do whatever the fuck they want with their property. If they want a fugly house, then that’s their right.

    • Korne127@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honestly, no. At least where I live, they’re finally starting to do something against gravel gardens. They are illegal here (have been for decades but no-one did anything against it) and they’re absolutely terrible for the environment and destroying green space (additionally to them being very bad for bees and further sealing the floor which is awful when any flood happens). Luckily people shouldn’t be able to do absolutely everything they want if it hurts everyone so much.

      • Neato@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Gravel gardens seal the ground? I thought it was just gravel on top of dirt.

        I would prefer housing authorities don’t require manicured grass lawns. They are so expensive to keep up and repair, especially since many don’t use native grass species so they need watering in the summer if you don’t want them to go brown.

  • Gangreless@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sure they didn’t turn it into a shop? Those definitely look like they were made into display windows

  • dotfiles@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I would have left the trees alone, but removed the grass and covered it with small black and grey stones. That way the trees would still look nice, and the rain water can still pass through the rocks and prevent flooding, unlike this mess. This looks like a business now, it’s not a home anymore.

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      pass through the rocks and prevent flooding

      Yah, that doesn’t work that way. Water needs to get pulled into plants or water channels created by dead plant root systems, or it just runs off. This is why deserts have flash floods.

  • catwhowalksbyhimself@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    People are focusing on the house in the middle, but if you look at he whole picture, it isn’t that one house. It’s every single house on both streets. It’s not just this specific owner. If this were the US, I’d suspect a HOA at work.

      • Apepollo11@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not sure if joking, but councils are in charge of the municipal borough - usually a big town/city and the area around it.

        Some people rent their houses from the council - council houses. This tends to mainly be people on low income, as the rates are low.

        Because these are rented, the council can make sure you are not doing anything to harm the value of the house. When the houses need maintenance (new windows, new roofs), the council will perform it at no cost to the tenants - usually an entire estate at once, which is why they look alike.

        Obviously the council has no say over houses it doesn’t own. Unless you are breaking the law in some way (e.g. causing a health concern), you’re allowed to do what you want.

        • RCMaehl [Any]@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Ah. That makes sense. I’d always heard Brits complaining about “the council” in regards to houses/property so I thought it was similar to an HOA.