Help me understand this... at least as it realtes to TPO's. The orders are
applied to privately owned trees, correct. So do TPO'd trees get maintained
by ratepayers' money? It may well be that there are more public trees in
the same areas that have enough private trees to be TPO's... but I don't see
where the TPOs are resulting in disproportionate care of public trees.
It seems that its more simply a function of developed density and the space
for trees. That on its own might be inequitable, but the incidence of TPOs
simply tracks the location of trees rather than resulting in the
disproportionate use of funds.
Now, a manager might look at these data and say "OK then, the amenity in
posh burb is rather stable due to all the private gardens so we'll decrease
our planting budget there and allocate it to dingy dale." Of course dingy
dale will have to be dug up to provide planting spots and "there you go
dispossesing the poor working sorts again... just where are we supposed to
live if you take our flat for planting bloody trees?"
Some of these political and socio-economic issues - real enough - are just
on a different plane than practical tree management I'm afraid.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dominic Scanlon" <dom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk>
To: "UK Tree Care" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 3:20 AM
Subject: RE: msc project
As
a result rate payer's money was spent on servicing the trees of the
affluent
areas. The Conservation areas just reinforced this as they were mostly
centred on historic areas - lots of listed buildings, expensive to live in
etc.
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
