• panchzila@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years 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
      ·
      2 years 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
      9
      ·
      2 years 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
      3
      ·
      2 years 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
    12
    ·
    2 years ago

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

  • RandoMcGuvins@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 years 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.

    • Striker@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 years 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
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years 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
          1
          ·
          2 years 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.

  • axtualdave@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 years ago

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

  • dotfiles@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 years 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
      2 years 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.

  • Gangreless@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

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

  • jg1i@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 years 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
      ·
      2 years 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
        ·
        2 years 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.

        • Korne127@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          I’m not living in the US. As far as I know, it’s something very ridiculous that every house needs to look absolutely the same (I feel the freedom). And no, what I wrote isn’t “the same”, mandating how every garden needs to look exactly the same is something entirely different to fighting against very specific “garden” styles that combat the environment and are bad for the infrastructure (see floods). I’m fine with people having their garden however they want and doing stuff, but it needs to be in certain boundaries, e.g. that you aren’t allowed to seal all ground which is terrible for bees, the environment in its wholeness and dangerous during floods.

          If there are some rare edge cases where many things depend on it and there are very good reasons to set a certain boundary but otherwise leave the freedom to do the own garden and house how they want, that’s something different to just mandating that there is no possibility to choose anything about it’s looks and destroy all creativity and uniqueness.

          • average650@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            Got it. HOAs get bad press for requiring every house to look the same, but the basic function they serve also includes preventing stuff like the above. How far they go depends on the HOA, but one that just prevents egregious stuff like the above isn’t fundamentally different from one that requires near uniformity.

            I just ask because lots of people hate HOAs, but this is one big reason they exist.

  • MuchPineapples@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Just before the previous owners of my house decided to put the house on the market they painted all wood inside (stairs, doors, door frames, window frames, skirting) pitch black.

    Yes thanks, I enjoy living in a cave. Removing, sanding and painting all that will take me 100s of hours.

    Oh, and it was done with the cheapest paint possible while painting over all hinges, locks and sometimes windows.