I want to thank Michael Marcotrigiano for his viewpoint on street trees and the importance of having a plan to preserve and plant them thoughtfully and carefully.
Ironically, I was reading it while listening to the loud buzzing saws as the Department of Public Works removed two more trees on Hastings Street (one in fair-to-good condition) without a tree hearing.
Why? To repair and replace the sidewalk that those trees once shaded, making the new sidewalk completely unshaded. That section of sidewalk from High to Parkway is not a high pedestrian traffic walkway. The removal of those two trees brings the total to 20 removed in the past two years.
Greenfield has made great strides in its cognizance of both the aesthetic and economical benefit to having trees in our “tree” belts. But it has a long way to go. To be fair some (five to six) of the 20 trees have been replaced, but not in the tree belt.
Hastings Street is a textbook case study on bad tree removal planning. To quote Marcotrigiano: “If more trees are removed than are planted, there will be a change to the character of our streets, neighborhoods … .”
Most definitely, not to mention devaluing property. Again: “Heat islands exist where hard surfaces heat up … on a 91-degree day, concrete sidewalks unshaded, on average, are 20 degrees hotter than shaded.”
Hastings is an east/west street. In the spring and summer, the heat island effect is brutal.
Greenfield, too, needs to embrace the advances in how to plan for street tree planting mentioned by Mr. Marcotrgiano. Meanwhile, replacing the majority of the 20 trees removed from Hastings Street and planting most in the tree belt needs to become a priority of the town. It should not be up to the affected residents to request a new tree when one is cut.
Roxann Wedegartner
Greenfield