Forum Home  |  Politics & Government  |  General Politics

Tacoma's Canopy Initiative encounters new stumbling block.

by fredo
on 9/4/2012 @ 12:45pm
The city council wants to try to achieve a 30% canopy from trees. This will require a huge increase in the number of trees. And the council wants to require businesses to plant more trees too. This will mean more yard waste then ever before. All those trees require a lot of leaf raking and pruning.

Here's the new stumbling block:

The city utilities refuses to provide businesses with the brown yard waste pick up containers. What kind of nonsense is this?  

by low bar on 9/4/2012 @ 5:34pm
a true descendent of the american pilgrim would look at more yard 'waste' as more material to throw into the compost pile. More material to recycle and use in their homestead. Perhaps fredo's descendants didn't get here by means of rolling up their sleeves and dealing with yard work.

And surprisingly fredo hasn't come to the conclusion that he can simply go start a small business with a pick up truck and go around and collect the excess landscape material himself if he doesn't like it. 

For once government isn't encroaching on small business by taking work away from them with their 'brown containers', and suddenly fredo complains about this small government presence. 

I'm actually beginning to agree with fredo on small government. The house and senate seats should be decreased to only one representative per district and one senator per state, much to mirror the rest of government: one mayor, one governor, one president. One seat to go to one party, the party that best represents the people. Then we can really start to smoke these GOP bastards and red states out of the union once and for all. 

by fredo on 9/4/2012 @ 6:16pm
I think what you are saying is that the city shouldn't have any yard waste pickup whatsoever, that it should all be composted.

I'm OK with that. Yard waste containers for ALL the ratepayers OR yard waste containers for NONE of the ratepayers.

by low bar on 9/4/2012 @ 6:32pm
No, what I am saying is where government falls short on street cleaning budgets due to some rate payers not paying rates, small business can step in and provide a service to the business who's trees need care. I mean, business wants government out of their lives then this is what it looks like when streets that belong to the rate payer are given trees that happen to be in front of a private business. If that private business doesn't like the public street that its on it can go find some other place to conduct business. We don't need half of the sh*t that is in stores to survive. Small business is lucky it gets any sales at all what with the minimal growth in wages and disposable income from middle class clientele. So quit complaining unless you're ready to change the entire system.

by fredo on 9/4/2012 @ 7:40pm
First you say that businesses can step in and provide services that the government can't afford to offer,

Then you say small business is lucky it gets any sales at all.

If businesses aren't getting any sales... how would they be able to afford to step in and provide services the government can't afford?

by low bar on 9/4/2012 @ 7:58pm
Well, as long as middle class wages stay flat and don't follow middle class productivity I don't know what to tell you. Maybe join an occupy movement. When the middle class earns more, it can pay more rates, it can buy more junk it doesn't need at small business and then small business can also then afford to pay rates to upkeep the street that it operates on. All it takes is the Koch brothers to have two vacation homes instead of five:)

Here's five sad charts on the situation. The numbers don't lie, unlike some Wisconsin politicians...

So answer me why productivity is going up but wages aren't?

We are going to reach a threshold when small business dies off because industry doesn't want to give up profit for wage increase in middle class jobs. But I'm sure its not that difficult to start a landscaping business. If mexicans can do it on a green card, fredo can do it! Get out there fredo! Go business to business and offer your raking services! Lemonade stand time! Pull up them boot straps fredo! Time to start your own business! 

The reason walmart does well is because they sell cheap. No one can afford the price tag of a small business mom and pop store anymore because the american dream has been hijacked by the koch brothers and co.

by fredo on 9/4/2012 @ 8:06pm
I was hoping to get a discussion started about the council decision not to provide yard waste receptacles to businesses even though it's trying to encourage businesses to plant more trees. 

 Immigration reform and the Koch's vacation homes really don't have any bearing on the topic.

by low bar on 9/4/2012 @ 8:08pm
Its the economy stupid. Its all connected. And that can't be hidden. Rates, income, public plans, its. all. connected. If you can't analyze the larger discussion you sure as sh*t have no business starting smaller discussions.

by fredo on 9/4/2012 @ 8:17pm
How can the city council control the economy?  And if our council is completely hamstrung by the bad economy and can't make a decision then why do we need a council? Let's fire them and just throw up our hands.

And if the economy is so bad, then how can they provide yard waste receptacles for homeowners at no charge?

by low bar on 9/4/2012 @ 8:38pm
What do you think feedtacoma is fredo? Mental welfare for your poor intellect?

Just because you were too lazy to study micro and macro economics and get the answers on your own doesn't mean feedtacoma has to cater to your feelings of entitlement for an explanation of city council matters. 

by fredo on 9/4/2012 @ 8:41pm
Yes, feedtacoma does have to cater to my feelings.

Also, I didn't ask you to explain city council matters, I only invited you to join the discussion.

by Non Sequitur on 9/4/2012 @ 10:30pm
I enjoy the hell out of watching the squabbling between y'all.

Ever heard of the steel mogul Andrew Carnige? Yeah, he's been dead for damn near 100 years, but there is a wing of the Library that bears his name.

Carnige worked for the railroads. After the civil war, the railroads began using steel rails instead of iron ones. Seeing an opportunity, Carnige took steps to get himself into steel.

Fredo has a similar opportunity. Granted, he will never be a billionaire but reaching the ranks of the hundred-thousandaires could be within his grasp!

by fredo on 9/5/2012 @ 7:08am
  Your suggestion that an Andrew Carnegie cargo cult exists here in Tacoma was interesting, however the topic is the city council decision to provide yard waste cans to residential customers but not to commercial customers.

by cisserosmiley on 9/5/2012 @ 8:26am
The businesses on my block of 6th ave all have brown cans...

by fredo on 9/5/2012 @ 8:40am

cissero, can you name a couple of the businesses so I can call the utility back today and challenge the policy that I was informed of?

by cisserosmiley on 9/5/2012 @ 10:04am
No I will not name any businesses, but I did walk down the street and verify.

by L.S.Erhardt on 9/5/2012 @ 10:53am
I've seen the brown cans outside the Hob Knob before.
Not today or anything, but in recent times.

by fredo on 9/5/2012 @ 1:41pm

thanks fellas. if you see a brown yard waste can in front of a business would you please post a picture into this thread?

by low bar on 9/5/2012 @ 1:47pm
theres only one cult that exists in tacoma and its the party before country party aka the GOP and it's voodoo economics. 

by fredo on 9/5/2012 @ 1:51pm

^thanks for your off topic rant^

by low bar on 9/5/2012 @ 1:56pm
thanks for your tree hate

by fredo on 9/5/2012 @ 2:13pm

wow, a personal attack to compliment your off topic rant. why don't you launch one of your profanity laced incoherent diatribes and make it a trifecta?

by low bar on 9/5/2012 @ 2:21pm
stop attacking trees and maybe i won't 

by fredo on 9/5/2012 @ 2:30pm

In which specific comment did I "attack trees?"

by low bar on 9/5/2012 @ 5:39pm
its the tone man. i wouldn't trust any of my trees around you. next thing we know you'll be positing the self deportation of flowers. 

by fredo on 9/5/2012 @ 6:12pm

  but low said I was "attacking trees."please copy/paste this "attack" 'cause I can't find it. 

by low bar on 9/5/2012 @ 6:41pm
You're building an argument against the planting of the 30% canopy from trees in the first place. You are trying to sour the plan by falsely pointing out the lack of brown containers supplied to business. (I'm assuming you are trying to gain support from business). But business doesn't own the public street. So your attack is pretty much going to fall flat. Still it's amusing seeing you try to land something. Thanks:)

by JesseHillFan on 9/5/2012 @ 7:23pm
You can bet that City Council members and city employees will be exempt from the requirements though.

by fredo on 9/5/2012 @ 8:10pm

Well, I might hate the 30% canopy requirement which will further erode what property owners can freely do with their property, but I'm not against trees per se. I have a wonderful yard and I've planted several trees over the last 30 years. I think streets look better when they are sunny and not cluttered up with lots of leaves and downed branches which nobody ever cleans up and not cratered with lots of root damaged walks and curbs.

by low bar on 9/5/2012 @ 8:30pm
just plant bonsai's fredo and you'll be fine. not like so far its clear what kind of trees you have to plant. the thing about owners and property is it all butts up against the rest of the real world. may be able to hitch a ride on the next mars lander and get some property that is yours but that also doesn't have to coexist with the rest of the planet....yet.

by fredo on 9/5/2012 @ 9:09pm
So...   people who object to Tacoma's proposed canopy requirement with an arbitrary 30% coverage goal should move to mars? That doesn't sound like a workable solution. But I like the bonsai tree idea, that's pretty clever.

by L.S.Erhardt on 9/6/2012 @ 10:41am
People, except for hardcore industrialists and possibly Fredo like
trees. Trees use carbon dioxide plus sunlight to make food and oxygen,
thus reducing pollution. Many tree species live hundreds of years,
resulting in minimal need to plant again for our lifetimes. Trees look
nice and add to curb appeal and property value. Tree roots help stop
soil erosion (especially on hills) and provide homes/food for wildlife
like birds. Trees shade the ground/houses resulting in less water usage for lawns and less energy used for cooling houses in the summer. Trees also help improve the aesthetic of a city.

Despite Fredo's objections, I can see noting wrong
with having a 30% canopy. Mind you, I'm sure that 30% number isn't
arbitrary. The COT likely did a $700,000 study on it

by fredo on 9/6/2012 @ 1:37pm
Thorax, you are really down on carbon dioxide (CO2)

Here are some other places carbon dioxide comes from:

1. Organic decomposition (leaves and branches)

2. petroleum exhaust (arborists service trucks)

Sounds to me like limiting the urban canopy will actually REDUCE CO2 emissions.Also a primary source of CO2 is exhaled breath. If CO2 is so bad then why are we trying to increase population density in the cities? That INCREASES CO2. 

Sad that a "hard core industrialist like fredo" has to provide basic science to the feedtacoma readership.

by low bar on 9/6/2012 @ 2:22pm
i think my brain just died a little bit. leave it to fredo to double down on dumbing down. thats like retarding down a discussion. 

by fredo on 9/6/2012 @ 3:40pm

I would imagine that people with low functioning brains have to be concerned when their brains "die a little bit."

by tacoma_1 on 9/6/2012 @ 3:57pm
Btw fredo,
Since u wanna hold science lessins here, humans emit (among other things) CO2 and vehicles emit CO.

And trees clean air and bank much more carbon than they emit.

My botany and biology classes at UW were good for something after all.

by fredo on 9/6/2012 @ 4:01pm
 " The largest part of most combustion gas is nitrogen (N2), water vapor (H2O) (except with pure-carbon fuels), and carbon dioxide (CO2)"  source: wikipedia

Is it too late to get a refund on your UW classes?

by low bar on 9/6/2012 @ 4:40pm
hahahahah citing wiki! you go fredo!!

is it too soon to fact check fredo?

Where is CO found?

"CO is found in combustion fumes, such as those produced by cars and trucks, small gasoline engines, stoves, lanterns, burning charcoal and wood, and gas ranges and heating systems."

but of course science is in cahoots with the liberal media...

by fredo on 9/6/2012 @ 4:53pm

  I guess wiki must be wrong. Maybe it's being controlled by fredo and his cadre of hardcore industrialists. hahahaha

by low bar on 9/6/2012 @ 5:08pm
no fredo, wiki isn't wrong. tacoma is wrong. wrong for letting you live within it's limits:)

by L.S.Erhardt on 9/6/2012 @ 6:04pm
You have quotes around the phrase "hard core industrialist like fredo" indicating that it was what I said. Perhaps you're paraphrasing, but what I actually said was "People, except for hardcore industrialists and possibly Fredo like

Quite the difference there.

While the quote itself is of not much importance, it shows that I also can knock down strawmen.

by L.S.Erhardt on 9/6/2012 @ 6:06pm
But aside from all the trollin' and H8n' that's going on, I gotta ask:

Fredo, why do you care so much about these as-yet-unplanted trees?

by JesseHillFan on 9/6/2012 @ 9:34pm
How about instead of a tree canopy campaign we abolish motor vehicles within the city instead.Motor Vehicles hoard the roads take more road space the faster they go (safe vehicle distance is higher at faster speeds) and make my active travel cycling route time commutes much longer in time.The take up a large amount of parking space which limits the width of traveled roads and no one wants other peoples junk cars parked in front of their residence.I have other people park in front of my house with their blight mobiles.They should be paying me at least $5.00 per day to park in front of my house.Sometimes a jerk even parks and blocks my driveway too.If there were only human and electric assist human vehicles on the roads they would be far less congested,gridlocked,noise,pollution and Earth destroying in excessive amounts CO2 and all of these negative problems would be greatly mitigated.Also people would be much healthier too and be far less obese.And yes I can carry cargo too as I have a new bike trailer which I'll motorize later on.Motor Vehicles block my travel and I pay for those roads and city streets.Motor Vehicles are one of the deadliest weapons ever devised and used on this Earth.Even Nuclear Weapon arsenals haven't killed as many people as have Motor Vehicles.Motor Vehicles are destroying this very Earth and those deluded people make me very very angry.Motor Vehicles are like having a Nuclear War with dozens of bombs going off ever year continuously on dozens of cities.The only difference is that Nuclear Weapons used contribute to global cooling.Motor Vehicles are the greatest threat to humanity and other species on this Earth,not nuclear weapons.Unlike Nuclear Weapons Motor Vehicle weaponry is being used all the time about a billion of those blights around the Earth with a billion deadheads not knowing what they are doing.It's like a doctor promoting his favorite brand of cigarette.. 

Motor Vehicles are also a great safety problem to others with sometimes out of control multi ton flying kinetic energy bombs hitting pedestrians,cyclists,businesses and homes.They are also a favorite tool of criminals as well.
No Motor Vehicles equals no motor vehicle thefts.No more high speed police chaises.No more drunk drivers either.Burglaries would go down as pickup trucks and vans are favorite tools of burglars ransacking homes and hauling off looted property.Child molesters and kidnappers love those Vans too.

by fredo on 9/7/2012 @ 6:02am
Thorax, I think you've misunderstood my position. I don't oppose trees and don't oppose folks who want more trees on their properties. 

I oppose the initiative to force Tacomans to accept the city control of their properties. This is about property rights. 

I guess you could say I'm using grassroots organizing to try to build public support against the proposal. As difficult as it is to stop the Tacoma City Council from making mistakes (convention center, Prium development LLC loans, streetcar removal, Clear Channel Settlement 1) it's better if people TRY to stop these mistakes before they happen. It's much harder to undo an established civic mistake. 

by tacoma_1 on 9/7/2012 @ 7:34am
U don't own the parking strips fredo. No property rights are infringed upon here.

What does wiki think about that?

by fredo on 9/7/2012 @ 7:37am

You might want to study the canopy initiative tacoma_1 before forming an opinion. it's a lot more than parking strips. it concerns your entire property.

by Jesse on 9/7/2012 @ 7:37am
Interesting conversation that I'm not willing to get sucked into but I do find it grand that Fredo lists the removal of Tacoma's streetcar network as one of the big mistakes in Tacoma history.  

Very progressive of you sir!  

Carry on...

by cisserosmiley on 9/7/2012 @ 7:40am
Fredo has a point...if everyone wants trees so bad then an "invitation-to-action" should be all it takes for folks to plant trees all over. Except Fredo's lot.

by tacoma_1 on 9/7/2012 @ 7:45am
Don't need to study it. I like trees. I already planted lots of trees on my property and have surpassed the 30% canopy without being asked to, because it improves my enjoyment of my property and raises my property value. Plus all of the positive environmental reasons that other posters have previously mentioned.

by fredo on 9/7/2012 @ 7:48am
tacoma_1: planting trees on YOUR property increases YOUR "enjoyment" of YOUR property. Well, that's fine.

....but you're not content with that situation.

you want to force other property owners to landscape in the way that you tend to enjoy. 

what if another property owner prefers less trees and having less trees would increase their "enjoyment?" Is their enjoyment any less important to them then your enjoyment is to you?

Yes or no?

by low bar on 9/7/2012 @ 3:05pm
now fredo knows how the PNW tribes feel about THEIR property lol

"The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on." - --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682

doesn't sound like fredo wants to do a whole lot of labor on his piece of earth. so why should he be entitled to decide on it?

See the thing about property rights culture in this country comes from a time when people actually did something with the land, instead of just sit on it. because doing something with the land meant that fruits of industry would then be shared with the rest of the states. today we have property owners who just own for the sake of owning. and when called upon to labor that land, in this case plant trees, some of these property owners don't want to take part in the union. the union benefits from development. being an american means striving for a more perfect union. so shut the hell up and plant some trees, or leave the union.

maybe you can plant some romney trees fredo. they'll all be the right height. don't have to worry about tree diversity:)

by fredo on 9/7/2012 @ 3:35pm
  I'm entitled to my opinion just as thomas jefferson was entitled to his.
Here's a better Jefferson quote:

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson

by Non Sequitur on 9/7/2012 @ 4:11pm
And here is a quote from Thomas Jefferson's personal gardener, James Smythe in 1885:

"To tend these small plots of earth, I am grateful. Though the slaves maintain the finest lands of this estate, my part in tending Thos. Jefferson's personal hemp gardens is a joy."

by low bar on 9/7/2012 @ 4:39pm
Sure you're entitled to your opinion fredo, but when its wrong, like your opinion of where CO is found, that opinion deserves to be rejected. And if rejected by a majority, well. Guess you're sh*t out of luck, pilgrim.

btw fredo you misquoted Jefferson. here's what he really wrote:

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." - The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom 1779

And the quote is in regards to religious freedom, not property rights. So I don't see how it supports your faulty opinion fredo

Nice one NS.

by low bar on 9/7/2012 @ 5:03pm
I don't see anything in the language that states that private property owners are going to be made to conform to any 30% canopy improvement. I do see that you may need a permit to plant in the right of way. Not surprising to see fredo misinforming on feedtacoma only in order to sour faith in the union and government.

by Non Sequitur on 9/7/2012 @ 5:06pm
A thing I notice about conversations with Fredo is that the discussion goes wildly off on tangents, resulting in the general population of netizens getting bored and then abandoning the thread long before anything fruitful comes out of the discussion.

While I highly doubt Fredo is COINTELPRO or any type of analog, sometimes his behavior reminds me of THIS.

by low bar on 9/7/2012 @ 5:19pm
fredo is even too dumb to be COINTELPRO, though i'm sure the idea comes from efforts like his. 

by fredo on 9/7/2012 @ 5:20pm
All the discussions on feedtacoma tend to go off wildly on tangents. I don't think that can be prevented.  This can frequently be traced to commentors who like to introduce straw man arguments. Few people on my thread will respond to my questions in a straight up fashion. They'd prefer to respond to a question they wished I asked.

This discussion was supposed to be about yard waste containers but was hijacked into becoming a discussion about carbon dioxide, Mitt romney, and low bar's "brain."  

by low bar on 9/7/2012 @ 5:40pm
here's the heart of your discussion fredo: the city is making people plant trees.

point out where this is policy or STFU.

i'm sure that if people need to get permits to plant in the first place that your claim the city is making people do stuff is pure BS, like everything else you post on FT.

by fredo on 9/7/2012 @ 6:33pm
low bar, you're not paying attention again.

the canopy initiative isn't POLICY it's just a proposal.

 If you need any further help learning to navigate the internet just let me know.

by low bar on 9/7/2012 @ 6:56pm
stupid moron. if you can't quote the proposal language then STFU part deux, the sequel.

i read the public review document and it doesn't say anything about making people plant trees. in fact you have to get a permit if you want to plant anything.

by fredo on 9/7/2012 @ 7:18pm
Page 16:

Some of the proposed changes would result in additional requirements that will result in 1)more tree plantings, 2)additional permit fees, 3) expense of hiring professionals, 4) ongoing maintenance and replacement, 5) additional city inspections and enforcement.

In conclusion:

The extention of requirements to residential uses will have a financial cost to homeowners.

Satisfied low bar? The document says that homeowners will have to plant trees and bear other expenses and inconveniences. 

by L.S.Erhardt on 9/7/2012 @ 7:50pm
Have you talked to your city council rep or attended any meetings/planning commission meetings?

by fredo on 9/7/2012 @ 8:14pm

Nope, but I've started a public discussion here at feedtacoma. I notice nobody from the city council has started a blog discussion about the tree canopy initiative.

by tacoma_1 on 9/7/2012 @ 8:38pm
That's funny. So in other words, you've done absolutely nothing but spew erroneous wiki facts and more of your never ending nonsensical opinion.

by fredo on 9/7/2012 @ 8:42pm
 "That's funny"

what's funny?

by low bar on 9/8/2012 @ 1:12am
fredo there's nothing on page 16 of the public review pdf document nitwit. try quoting exacting what you found where. so tiring. 

by fredo on 9/8/2012 @ 6:22am
good catch low bar. I meant page 15.

People should really review the whole document though. It's over 100 pages long and extremely detailed.

Many of the freedoms that homeowners currently have to arrange their properties in the way that suits them are going to given up to some faceless local bureaucrats. Once this canopy initiative becomes city policy its going to be nightmare for property owners. You won't be able to put in a single fencepost or shrub unless you've got a permit. They are going to snuff out any reason for people to want to acquire property in Tacoma.

If you are a renter these new canopy conformance costs are going to be passed to you in the form of rent increases.

Fortunately the government has exempted most of it's own property from the new law. How convenient.

by tacoma_1 on 9/8/2012 @ 8:28am
All the bureaucrats that I know have faces.

Someone should start a charity to help those poor bureaucrats that were born w/out faces.

by cisserosmiley on 9/8/2012 @ 8:52am
There's a reason for people to want to acquire property in Tacoma ?

by low bar on 9/8/2012 @ 9:17am
you're dabbling in bullsh*t specualtion fredo. as usual.

and any nitwit can do the thing with the tree calculator and see that costs will be returned.

nitwits across the USA here.

and as for permits. they don't cost anything. and as for the need for permits and "guidance, monitoring and support from the City" page 15, this is so some dumbass nitwit doesn't go to home depot and plant a bunch of stuff on their property that causes an invasive species out break in the rest of the city's ecology. DUH.

"Research from the USFS in 2001 shows that for every dollar invested in tree maintenance in Western Washington, an estimated $2.70 is returned in quantifiable benefits" page 15

if anything renters will see a credit. DUH DUH DUH nitwits across the USA on feedtacoma. SOP.

by fredo on 9/8/2012 @ 11:23am
Low bar, the city proposal says flat out that there will be


It doesn't say that these costs will be returned to homeowners.

You're just making stuff up because you're basically an obtuse person. Doubt if you even own property in Tacoma. You probably live in your mom's basement.

by fredo on 9/8/2012 @ 11:35am
  RE: the invasive plants that people are buying at Home Depot.

What plants are these?.

Are they as invasive as the scotch broom that the City of Tacoma isn't controlling on city property all over Tacoma? 

by low bar on 9/8/2012 @ 3:40pm
so what if i don't own property in tacoma? if i did i sure as sh*it wouldn't be a non-ciziten like you. i'd participate in making my city more greener and pleasant. i wouldn't be a selfish miser and scoff at any effort to make tacoma more livable for animals besides just humans.

and kids love trees. you would have a child that enters this earth see less trees? what will that child from the start think about the place its raised in? that the adults responsible for it are too lazy to develop it's home? That all signs of nature should be cut back and paved over?

fredo you really just need to fly to mars man. you'd be way happier there. and tacoma would be less one bah humbug neighbor who's too lazy and cheap to help make the city a nicer place to live and raise a family.

GOP the party of the family my ass.

More like GOP the party of the lazy and cheap.

by fredo on 9/8/2012 @ 4:21pm
"kids love trees" low bar

Nope, kids prefer big sunny grassy areas to run and play in. I don't see anything in the city initiative which will invite people to plant big grassy areas.

I guess the city and it's confused disciples of utopia like yourself must hate kids. You should go to mars because you obviously are unfamiliar with creating a space that people would like to raise families in. Ever try flying kites, throwing frisbees, playing kick soccer, badmitten, volleyball, croquet or horseshoes on a lot covered with trees? It's not possible. Kids don't want to play in a yard covered with a bunch of stupid trees.

by low bar on 9/8/2012 @ 5:02pm
Ever heard of tree houses retard? Like coolest thing ever. You were probably too puss to climb in trees though. I can totally tell. I bet you never even had a girlfriend as a kid. No carving your names in trees.

Go live on treeless mars you alien weirdo.

by fredo on 9/8/2012 @ 5:23pm
Tree houses aren't allowed in Tacoma retard.

Go live on Mars and take your poplarazee friends with you.

by low bar on 9/8/2012 @ 5:39pm
Tree houses not allowed? Sounds like a big bah humbug from our scroogey neighbor fredo. Who also happens to be a martian lizard that wants deserts and other treeless open spaces he can scurry around on and flick his forked tongue at kids melting in the shadeless heat. that's some demonic world you'd rather create. why don't you and your hellscape devil worshiping weirdo clan take the next rocket ride back to hades. 

by fredo on 9/8/2012 @ 5:42pm
  NEW YORK (AP / Huffington Post) -- Police say a 6-month-old baby has been killed and her mother injured by a falling tree branch at the Central Park Zoo in New York City. (May, 2011)

I don't remember ever hearing of a nice grassy yard killing a child. Maybe you enjoy endangering kids.... even enjoy reports of deaths like the one in NY. Tacoma doesn't need anymore soulless child haters like you low bar. Killing children...that's pretty low even for you.

by low bar on 9/8/2012 @ 5:46pm
thats the thing with you repugnant republicans. one tree branch falls and there for all trees are bad. i'm sure more babies die each year from heat exposure and exposure to the elements then tree branches. just ask the folks in africa, moranus. you'd rather have babies breathing poison air that trees help clean. trust me, your thoughts on the environment are as low as they get.

by fredo on 9/8/2012 @ 5:51pm
I wish it were true that only one death occured this way. It's more widespread than that. But for people like you who hate children these tree related deaths are either the desired result or just collateral damage. This story should make you happy:

 AP) PITTSGROVE, N.J. - Police say two young cousins camping with their families
have been killed in New Jersey after a tree fell on their tent during a summer

by low bar on 9/8/2012 @ 6:04pm
let me try to put this in terms even your lizard brain can comprehend.

you leave a baby out in the sun on a nice grassy yard, and it will die in a few hours.

you leave a baby under a tree and wait for a branch to fall, you're going to be waiting a few years if not decades, not to mention the branch has to fall on exactly the right spot.

but all that doesn't matter because in fredopia the air will be so un-breathable due to lack of canopy that kids will just drop dead the minute they try to fly a kite.

by fredo on 9/8/2012 @ 6:11pm
The air in Tacoma is perfectly breathable right now with 19% canopy covering IMO.

However, when all those arborist and landscaping contractors start driving their work trucks around town to service the canopied "utopia" they will be belching out tons of unbreathable particulates and poisons such as carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide which injure the lungs of little children.

But that probably brings you joy... you baby hater.

More reports of children killed by trees are now coming in:

"A 6-year-old girl was killed on Thursday when a large tree fell on her, the Morrow County sheriff’s office said today."

by fredo on 9/8/2012 @ 7:01pm
How are Tacoma's children going to get enough Vitamin D with all the trees blocking out the sunlight?

Read what the US Surgeon General said about the importance of sunshine:

"Vitamin D can be made in the skin by being exposed to sunlight. For some individuals PARTICULARLY CHILDREN (my caps) and others who get enough exposure during warmer months, the sun CAN provide adequate levels of Vitamin D throught the entire year"

Source: Lifestyle approaches to promote bone health. page 164.

I can't believe that the city council will try to deprive our youth of much needed Vitamin D which helps prevent diabetes.

I guess we can conclude that the enhanced health benefits of the canopy will be reduced by the lack of Vitamin D. That extra oxygen will probably come in handy when the folks with diabetes have their feet amputated. It will give them more endurance when they try to push their wheelchairs up steep hills.

by low bar on 9/8/2012 @ 7:48pm
man you're like the king of the straw man argument. which also makes you the king hypocrite of this blog.

if you cared about kids not getting enough sun we'd see fredo threads covering this position all winter long, not just when fredo's role in the rate payer system is being burdened.

its not the fumes the arborist truck creates that trouble fredo, its the rates fredo has to pay for their operation, or we'd see year round fredo making the case against every other truck on the road creating the same fumes.

i mean, by fredologic if the same amount of arborist trucks were on the road at a 19% canopy with perfectly breathable air, then at 30% the air would even be cleaner. Unless you're an alien who doesn't breath air and could care less how clean the air is for the rest of us.

And if fredo cared about people getting hit by branches, we'd see fredo starting threads on the subject all the time, not just when the counsel asks what he can do for his city.

fredo, you're a hypocritical miser and logically challenged to boot. and reading any discussion you post here is an utter waste of time, or we'd see more voices come out in support of your nonsense. And even if more voices did appear, they would all be as easily to dismiss as yours:)

by fredo on 9/8/2012 @ 8:47pm
It would be nice if the city council would express concern for lack of sunshine that they are expressing for lack of oxygen.

Maybe the aftermath of diabetes is OK when you're a member in good standing of the poplarazee.


by cisserosmiley on 9/9/2012 @ 8:01am
@Fredo, will you run for city next year? You can use this photo for your campaign poster.

by low bar on 9/9/2012 @ 3:40pm
plutonomy in this country is on a downward trajectory so i don't see fredo's fascist economic ideas gaining any traction in an election. not in this age information and the internet being a virtual gutenberg press on steroids.

the GOP would love to have you narrow your involvement in government though. As any fascist movement would.

“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.”- President Franklin D. Roosevelt

In a privatized government though the GOP could get away with their bullsh*t. The more our country becomes controlled by privatized interests the harder it gets to vote them out. At least with big government you can vote out a party. You can't vote out a walmart. Once a walmart lands in your neighborhood and starts deforesting I'm sure every sound Tacoman can see how hard it is to get rid of them. You can't vote out a privatized entity. You can vote in/out public issues. There for big government will ALWAYS be the safer bet.

by fredo on 9/9/2012 @ 4:08pm
The subject is yard waste receptacles. 

 I don't think the GOP has expressed a position.

by Non Sequitur on 9/9/2012 @ 4:57pm
If the receptacles are funded by tax dollars that would otherwise stay in millionaires' pockets, then I'm certain the GOP would have a firm "NO" stance.

by low bar on 9/9/2012 @ 5:33pm
"The subject is yard waste receptacles."

that would be true if every time fredo posted a subject that subject was truly a subject.

but as everyone can see by how easy it is to pin fredo's subjects to a larger subject...fredo's subjects become agendas.

and agendas are for me at practice.

"I don't think the GOP has expressed a position."

any time public spending is mentioned in a discussion, somewhere GOP voices against it are like ticks on a coonhound, you're always going to find one.

by fredo on 9/9/2012 @ 5:34pm

I believe the receptacles are funded by local ratepayers, but I'm not certain about that NS. Thanks for the comment. 

by fredo on 9/9/2012 @ 6:10pm
 " any time public spending is mentioned in a discussion, somewhere GOP voices against it are like ticks on a coonhound, you're always going to find one." lowbar

public spending wasn't mentioned.

by low bar on 9/9/2012 @ 6:27pm
public spending. n (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) expenditure by central government, local authorities, and public enterprises.

Public enterprise

Utilities (gas, electricity, etc.), broadcasting, telecommunications,
and certain forms of transport are examples of this kind of public

Utilities = receptacles.

just shut up fredo. we'll take it from here bird brain.

by fredo on 9/9/2012 @ 6:48pm
  I'll clarify my remarks,

I didn't mention public funding or any funding whatsoever.

by JesseHillFan on 9/9/2012 @ 10:02pm
Population of the city of Tacoma 

Let's assume a personal motor vehicle ownership per person at an average of 80% as some residents have multiple vehicles and children tend not to drive (exceptions to that are 8 year olds riding pocket rockets and Samaj Booker etc).----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This seems reasonable as here are statistics of number of motor vehicles in the

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------O.K. lets assume 203,397 citizens times 80% vehicle ownership or drivers.That equates to 167,717.6 passenger vehicles (not counting motorcycles,mopeds,scooters etc)
Now an Average American Driver drives 12,000 miles per year or so (some much more,some much less etc).Let's look at this
O.K. somewhat vague has a few figures.Lets assume an average of 25 mpg.
12,000 miles divided by 25 mpg equals 480 gallons of gasoline used by each American Driver per year on average.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now 1 gallon of gasoline during combustion with atmospheric air puts out 19 pounds of Carbon Dioxide.So 19 pounds per gallon of gas times 480 gallons of gasoline used by each average American driver  equals 9,120 pounds of Carbon Dioxide produced for each Average American driver per year which is also roughly about 4 and a half tons.
A single mature tree can absorb about 48 pounds of Carbon Dioxide per year -source 

So to offset and absorb all the CO2 produced by each average American Driver would equate to 9,120 pounds per driver per passenger vehicle divided by 48 pounds per tree and that would be a figure of -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------190 mature trees needed to absorb the CO2 by each Average American Driver every year.(Or roughly requiring a half of an acre of land to grow those trees on per vehicle/driver used.
That's just offsetting CO2 by cars and not any other emission source which combined would require 4 times that number of trees.
In other words it would require 31,866,344 mature trees to offset the CO2 emissions by 167,717.6 Tacoma Passenger Drivers or 1/2 acre of land per car/driver or 83,858.8 acres of land to offset just the CO2 emissions by Tacoma Passenger Drivers/Owners etc.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine 190 mature trees needed to offset and negate the CO2 emissions per driver.So a residence of 4 car drivers/owners would need 760 mature trees in their 2 average acres of land.Ha Ha that's so impractical.
That would be like Commodore Matt Decker trying to destroy the Planet Killer in the Star Trek TOS episode The Doomsday Machine

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Or it would be like each passenger on the Titanic asked to help save the doomed ship from sinking by each using 5 gallon buckets and bailing water out of the ship.It just won't work.
The City Council is insane--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other issues a 30 % Tree Canopy could be a recipe for big forest fires within the city.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------See how many trees needed to offset just the CO2 emissions by each average passenger driver/owner.It's insane.Ban cars first.Whether I disagree with fredo on motor vehicles this tree plan is kooky.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

by low bar on 9/10/2012 @ 12:07am
JHF i think you forgot to add in the sq mileage of the city limits of tacoma or whatever size the area's are in the 30% plan. otherwise how are we to imagine a density that would create an urban forest fire? never saw NYC central park go up in flames. not even on 9/11. just saying. also you'd have to count the number of mature trees already in tacoma and add that to your kooky spreadsheet, not just the population of people. the mature trees too.

NYC urban tree canopy is now at 24%

by JesseHillFan on 9/10/2012 @ 12:30am
That's true we would have to include all the mature trees known in Tacoma and subtract from that 31 million mature tree figure.If you consider other man made CO2 sources to become truly carbon neutral the actually mature tree population needs to be 4 times that (transportation is about one quarter the CO2 offender source) roughly or 124 million mature trees needed in the space occupied by the city of Tacoma.I don't think this is possible though as it would require a space of 335,435.2 acres of land to do so.Since 640 acres of land equals 1 squares miles that equates to approx. 524.1175 square miles completely filled with mature trees to accomplish that task.Since the city of Tacoma is 62.5 square miles that would require an area 8.38588 times the size of the city of Tacoma filled with Mature Trees to offset and be 100% carbon neutral if you wanted to sequester the carbon within the borders of Tacoma.In other words not feasible.However trees outside in rural areas will make up a little for what can't be done here though not really as the anthropogenic sources of CO2 are much in excess of what realistically can be sequestered by nature through plants,trees,the ocean etc.
That explains the rise in levels and acidification of the oceans.
It's the offending sources (overpopulation,fossil fuel use etc) that have to be eliminated first (Stalinist draconian methods work best example like putting a bullet in the heads of resistant capitalistic motor vehicle owner-users by teams of NKVD etc).

by low bar on 9/10/2012 @ 3:04am
"The city utilities refuses to provide businesses with the brown yard waste pick up containers." - fredo

"I didn't mention public funding or any funding whatsoever." - fredo

aren't city utility works funded by public funding?

anyone who thinks austerity plans (cutting of public funding) are going to work for the economy only need only to look at europe now heading back into recession after submitting to austerity plans.

"The EU is now officially back in recession. Unemployment is rising in all of the nations that have submitted to austerity plans."

so if you think GOP austerity budgets aren't going to hurt the American economy...think again.

by fredo on 9/10/2012 @ 7:41am
low bar, its fair to assume that the cost of the plastic cans would be distributed to the local ratepayers in some fashion. I doubt if this is an expense that the government pays for . I have both residential and commercial accounts with the utility but only with the commercial account am I refused a can. There was no issue of any unwillingness to pay for it by myself.   

JHF, that was a pretty interesting analysis you attempted there. The only thing that seems to be missing is the acknowledgement that every living tree will eventually die and then it gives up the Carbon Dioxide that it was holding. Doesn't matter if the tree burns or just rots from old age, all the nasty carbon dioxide is going to be released again into the atmosphere. Also all the leaves and limbs that are removed/dropped release carbon dioxide as well.

Since there's no good science behind the canopy proposal we can conclude that the only reason it's being promoted is that it creates a lot of bureaucratic offices for liberals to stash their friends into  Basically it's a jobs program for arborists, landscapers, and pencil pushers.

by cisserosmiley on 9/10/2012 @ 8:40am
The "public utilities" are private contractors from WASTE MANAGEMENT and since 1%'er JAKE FEY flushed our beloved Tacoma cooperative utility system for the "KING COUNTY-ESC" Waste Management Inc. from California our rates are up, we have seen horrible waste management strikes in Seattle, and Fredo can't get a brown can! Thanks JAKE FEY ! living the 1%'er lifestyle is paying dividends for you big guy !

by low bar on 9/10/2012 @ 10:23am
easy now fredo. families depend on the income from jobs, any kind of jobs, even arborist jobs. and if guys like romney wouldn't have closed down and shipped so many jobs off shore along with his earnings, maybe more families wouldn't have to depend on the bureaucracy. you can't have it both ways GOP.

as far as good science goes fredo, economics is a science too. and if a family has an income, that family spends and stimulates the economy. fredo, it's the economy stupid. anything a family can afford to spend they will in local business if they can afford to avoid the walmart trap.

and judging by cissero's observations tacoma isn't too bright when it comes to economics. much like fredo.

austerity doesn't work. never will work. and we can already see by europe's recent dip back into a recession solid proof of this.

by fredo on 9/10/2012 @ 11:11am
  " families depend on the income from jobs, any kind of jobs, even arborist jobs". low bar

Glad somebody agrees with me that the canopy initiative is a jobs program.

"if a family has an income, that family spends and stimulates the economy" low bar

But low bar, if the family has to pay additional money out to conform to the canopy initiative, as the city itself mentioned, then they will have LESS money to stimulate the economy, not MORE money. Even a stupid person would know that less money has a less stimulating effect than more money.

P.S. I should note that my comments are my own. I'm not speaking on behalf of the GOP, Mitt romney, the Eurozone austerity program or any other liberal targets.

by low bar on 9/10/2012 @ 12:34pm
see the smug thing doesn't really work for you fredo, because you're an entry level opponent. and here's why..everyone just read cissero's testimony that a more affordable tacoma cooperative utility system recently existed. which means families would pay less, not more, in utilities under a former utilities plan. a plan that was working for families until recently.

so how do you get that families would have less money under a proper utilities plan? unless you're stupid (honestly you fredo have the worst distortion skills I've ever seen).

and i would like to commend you with distancing yourself from the GOP because lets face it, they've got enough entry level noobs working for them. just look at the polls.

and i would worry about being a target if i were you, because if the 99% of patriots in this country ever come after their slice of the american dream, it's going to be in numbers never seen before. simply because left of center in politics right now is the new center:)

by JesseHillFan on 9/10/2012 @ 1:08pm
"But low bar, if the family has to pay additional money out to conform to the canopy initiative, as the city itself mentioned, then they will have LESS money to stimulate the economy, not MORE money. Even a stupid person would know that less money has a less stimulating effect than more money."Good point Fredo.That's another reason why I cycle to get around as I save between $300 to $1,000 per month not having a car (making payments,insurance,maintenance costs,parking fees,vehicle registration,fuel costs etc).I can use the extra money not having to pay the motor vehicle usage compliancy.The city possibly forcing residents to pay to have street trees maintained is extortion and loss of liberty.

by low bar on 9/10/2012 @ 1:20pm
Excellent point JHF. And you can save this money because Tacoma has a city that you can get around in. Assuming you're able to get to work and do whatever it is you do with in the distances of city limits easily simply because of the layout of a city.

Now, take your precious bicycle and try to do that crap while having to commute between cities like the rest of us.

Point is, people are less likely to visit a city that is barren vs a city with green landscaping. Families are not attracted to concrete slabs of urban wasteland. Businesses will suffer loss because no one is going to want to visit a city, let alone live in one, that looks like the surface of mars.

So the extortion accusation simply doesn't play. Not when business can benefit from families visiting an appealing urban landscape vs one that looks like strip mall hell. And we're talking about middle class families here. The kind with a little education and travel under their belt. And there lies the power of the economy. Whatever you can do to facilitate the pursuit of happiness in the middle class will grow the economy. So plant the trees and they will come.

Entry level noobs all around on feedtacoma. SOP.

by JesseHillFan on 9/10/2012 @ 1:24pm
Actually I do commute between two cities.And did so recently with my new trailer

by low bar on 9/10/2012 @ 1:33pm
That's nice JHF. You commute between two cities on a bicycle. But something in the tone of the absence of meat in your example tells us you're withholding the fact that you're still an exception to the rule.

The rest of America has to actually cross greater distances then you to maintain their footing in the middle class.

Want to show us how smart you are JHF? Challenge my assertion that families would end up spending less on proper public enterprise plans such as the former Tacoma cooperative utilities system....

by low bar on 9/10/2012 @ 1:47pm
And here's the thing that I don't get with bicycle freaks. How do they expect the elderly to get around? hahahahaha

Now JHF, you can support conservative claims, but as Noble prize winning economist Paul Krugman points out the Republican base is angry old people.

So JHF, whats your plan to get the elderly middle class around in America without pissing them off? hahahahaha

like I said, entry level noobs on feedtacoma. standard operating procedure.

by fredo on 9/10/2012 @ 1:50pm
 " people are less likely to visit a city that is barren vs a city with green landscaping" low bar

Fact check:

Denver CO 10% canopy cover 10.9M overnight visitors 2009

Las Vegas NV 13% canopy cover 43M overnight visitors 2009

Tacoma WA 19% canopy cover (visitors unknown but using low bars analysis it must be way in excess of 43M.)

by low bar on 9/10/2012 @ 1:54pm
"DENVER, where the fledgling Greenprint Denver program's goal is planting one million trees during the next 20 years. Other nearby towns participating. Media coverage, Denver Post, Oct. 19, 2006, by Jeremy Meyer."

i'm sure denver is pushing for more canopy over the next 20 years for absolutely no economic growth reason.


by low bar on 9/10/2012 @ 2:11pm
btw fredo, you can post numbers but if you don't share where you got those numbers then they don't mean anything.

i can write a bunch of numbers to support my claims too. 123456789. see?

so basically all your data fredo reads like this:

"123456789' - fredo


by fredo on 9/10/2012 @ 2:14pm

  according to your posting low bar, the reason that 10 million people are visiting Denver every year is because they have goal of planting 1 million trees during the next 20 years. That doesn't make any sense, in fact, it's preposterous. If that's the best you've got you should stop posting.

by JesseHillFan on 9/10/2012 @ 2:17pm
Low bar Tacoma did just fine without Motor Vehicles in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century.In fact humans survived quite well without them for millenia.The pyramids of Egypt were build without motor vehicles or modern construction equipment and so was ancient Rome.They seemed to do well.My brother owned a huge house (I would call it a mansion)in Tacoma that was built before motor vehicles came into existence.As for the elderly I remember a 80 year old cyclist whom was featured in the news tribune recently.and many people become cripples because of living a sedentary lifestyle and using a motor vehicle.My grandparents on both sides of my family didn't own any motor vehicles although a grandfather whom I never met (he passed away before I was born) did own a motor vehicle.Myself I could closely call myself near elderly and if one has a problem with active travel by cycling there are electric motorized bicycles, recumbent trikes  and even electric motorized Velomobiles too far far more energy efficient than a car (and just as safe and weather protected) and a human powered pedaled record of 82 mph was recently achieved by one.In fact electric assist bicycles are recommended by doctors for those with cardiovascular problems.Automobiles are as much of a threat to human health (and a threat to other species on this planet) as is smoking tobacco..
I don't like political ideologies so I support neither.
You might consider a electric motorized very light in mass bicycle, recumbent trike or Velomobile a motor vehicle but it's not classed as such if legal and it's actually a human/electric powered hybrid.

by fredo on 9/10/2012 @ 2:17pm
learn how to use google low bar.

key words: Denver, visitors, statistics

just a little while back you said more people liked to visit green landscaped cities than barren cities and neglected to provide any evidence. If you don't share where you got that information it means nothing. This is what your comments look like to me 123456789.

by low bar on 9/10/2012 @ 2:22pm
did i say thay fredo? or are you trying to defy logic again like the entry level noob you are?

lets look at Nevada shall we?

Why would Las Vegas fund a urban tree study unless the city wants to know how it would benefit growth? hahaha

according to my posting more cities are investigating the benefits to urban canopy increase. and they wouldn't support investigative actions like these unless there was good reason to. Unless something in the data shows cities can benefit.

Is that simple enough reasoning for you to grasp fredo? hahahahaha noob

by low bar on 9/10/2012 @ 2:27pm
"learn how to use google low bar. key words: Denver, visitors, statistics" - fredo

well if it's so simple why don't you just post references? unless posting links is even too hard for a noob like you fredo hahahaha

no i just think you're too lazy. your heart is not really in the argument. and if your heart's not in it, why should anyone care what you have to say..:)

by fredo on 9/10/2012 @ 2:48pm

low bar, Looks to me like I've proven that vacationers like to visit places where it's SUNNY and not places where there are urban canopies. With your tortured sense of reasoning I can see why all your arguments turn out to be the literal equivalent of dog poop.

by low bar on 9/10/2012 @ 2:49pm
ok fredo, since you asked and since you clearly need to learn how its done..

hawaii. its green, SUNNY and has lots of urban canopy. it gets a lot of visitors because of its green landscapes.


death valley, its barren and SUNNY. doesn't as get much visitation as green hawaii. in fact visitors to this barren landscape actually get in trouble when they do visit.

"Death Valley National Park spokesman Terry Baldino said visitors find all kinds of ways to get themselves in trouble in the Western Hemisphere's hottest spot"

so the simplest terms i can put this in for fredo to grasp is in his favorite equals terms

green and SUNNY = good, barren and SUNNY = bad.

by low bar on 9/10/2012 @ 2:58pm
fredo the day you prove anything besides your piss poor ability to comeback (dog poop, really) is the day you'll actually give me a challenge. i'm bored now.  

by fredo on 9/10/2012 @ 4:06pm

fine with me, I don't think your comments add anything to this thread anyway.

by low bar on 9/10/2012 @ 4:26pm
exactly. you don't think.