I just read the LA Times article "Study reveals attitudes about lack of trees in South LA." FTR I live in South Los Angeles in an area that has both a lot of trees and no trees. I choose my walking route based on the streets that have trees that can provide me with sun protection and protection from the summer heat. I can feel the huge temperature difference when I walk the two blocks with no trees to get to the one block with trees. The areas in SLA with trees have nice well maintained homes. The areas without trees have less well maintained homes, apartments, commercial and industrial buildings.
My first issue with the article is it starts off with a very racist comment by an alleged community leader. It's as follows: "Our lack of trees is not an accident or coincidence. It is a result of historic patterns of discrimination, disenfranchisement and racist planning practices." This is false. There is a lot more to the history of South LA and trees. Yes, racism and discrimination exist in Los Angeles but there has never been a policy where no trees were planted in areas because of race.When you automatically accuse everyone of racism and discrimination they are less inclined to want to help. You are attacking the people from whom you are asking for help which makes no sense.
First some history. Originally this land belonged to Native Americans for tens of thousands of years. Later the Spaniards stole the land from the Native Americans calling it New Spain in 1542. Spain claimed the specific area of California in 1769 and Los Angeles was established in 1781. Mexico got their independence from Spain in 1810 and controlled the land. California became a nation in 1846 independent from Mexico. In 1850 California became a US state. California was a free state and didn't have slavery but did have Native Americans and Mexicans.
Southern California was mainly rolling hills with sage scrub and grassland. Most of South Los Angeles didn't have a lot of trees naturally. The area is mainly flat land. It was used for farming because it was flat with few trees. The few trees were near creeks and rivers or in the higher hills. We are in Sunset Climate Zones 18–24. Only very hardy small trees, shrubs grow in the flat areas naturally though we have larger oaks, sycamores, pine trees, fan palm trees... near areas with more water. We are not a forest but a drier desert area without a lot of natural trees.
Around 1880 they started building a lot of homes. Most developments cut down native plants, trees then planted a lot of non native trees around the homes and lining the streets on the parkways. Some still exist today but sadly trees don't live forever so many have died. Many trees were not good choices for our climate, drought conditions so they died.
From 1880 to 1940 most of South LA was middle class to more affluent. Around 1900 some more expensive developments didn't allow blacks, Mexicans, Indians... The LA Sugar Hill case ended housing segregation in 1945. School segregation ended 1947. Fair Housing Act was 1968. This happened all over the entire US.
Starting around 1945 some people left South Los Angeles and moved to more affluent newer areas. The reasons are because the housing stock was getting older and dilapidated as most homes were built 1880-1920. It was caused partly by the real estate cycle of decline. People wanted to move to newer developments. It was also caused by scaremonger tactics from real estate investors who scared some white people causing "white flight." They were told their properties would be worth pennies once other people such as blacks lived near them. Property values went down and continued to go down as the area fell into disrepair which is called decline in real estate cycles. People weren't maintaining the homes or the trees.
As the property values went down making it more affordable the percentage of blacks, Latinos went up. There is a correlation between income and race. Whites make more money than blacks, Latinos. People who make more money have more money and buy more expensive homes in more expensive areas. This has nothing to do with the Planning Department. Over time more POC lived in these more affordable areas of South LA. Over time the population has become mainly Latino then white then black. LA City Census shows 64% Latino then white, black equally. It varies by poll type and specific area. Little Honduras is more Latino.
Lower income people tend to live in cheaper smaller homes, duplexes and apartments. For this reason there is a higher density of people in lower income areas. Because of income correlation this means there are more blacks, Latinos in these areas. People buy what they can afford. There are also lots of poor whites here. This explains the people to tree ratio in the Times article. It's not racism but economics 101.
Some people, neighborhoods, cities, organizations would plant new trees as older ones died from age, bark beetles, drought, damage from utility line tree maintenance programs... Those are generally middle income areas and up in Los Angeles. Many times the homeowner, property owner planted a new tree to replace dead ones in front of their property. Legally property owners are responsible for maintaining the parkway and trees in front of their property. That is the little strip of land between the street and sidewalk. People are supposed to maintain the city trees on their parkway though the city will trim it. Many in lower income areas do not maintain the trees on the parkway. Most people are lower income tenants in these areas. Tenants don't maintain anything. Landlords don't live there and don't really care. Not as many are owner occupied homes. Property owners are the main reason there are no living trees on the parkways in those areas.
Property taxes from specific areas generally pay for city repairs and improvements in those specific areas. These areas have lower values so they have less revenue from property and other taxes. They have less money in their budgets for tree planting. Generally politicians will pass new programs based on what the constituents want. They take polls. The people living in the areas wanted more police protection, general clean up, affordable housing, parks, school improvements... They did not want the few city dollars spent on new trees. It's what they wanted. Tenants and landlords vote equally.
After many years with no new trees planted and older ones dying there are fewer trees in South LA today. Some nonprofits and neighborhood organizations started fundraising to buy and plant trees in South LA. They planted some trees. Many were not watered or cared for and they died. Some were stolen. Others were vandalized. I've seen all of this first hand. I'd replant the ones ripped out by vagrants. I'd water some. I picked up two that were knocked over by cars, replanted and restaked them only for them to later be stolen. I saw someone load one in a truck but he had no license plate so I couldn't report it like that would have done anything anyway.
Some see new trees as a sign of "gentrification" so they destroy the trees which is crazy. Gentrification is just the real estate cycle of revitalization. It's been happening all over the world since the beginning of time. People get pushed out of more expensive areas so they move into adjacent areas which are more affordable. This causes home prices and rents to go up in those areas. Some existing tenants will have rent increases as the area improves. I've found in my area which is mainly Latino that more affluent Latinos are replacing less affluent Latinos. It has nothing to do with race or color but money. It's based solely on economics. In one case middle income Latinos moved into an area of lower income Latinos. The lower income Latinos broke windows, graffiti'd the businesses of the middle income Latinos because they didn't want their rent to rise. What really gets me is the lower income people who own the property are happy as hell to sell for 10x what they paid for it. It's only a few tenants who complain. Since the beginning of time people would just move to another area they can afford but today they protest and blame others and call people racists.
All that said we do need more trees in South Los Angeles and other areas with few trees. The City of Los Angeles has had tree planting programs called "City Trees," "Million Trees LA" for years. They give away free trees all the time. In 2006 the goal was to plan a million trees in a few years. It was not that successful because people didn't care for the trees and they died. They were also not the best trees. I saw one which was a purple potato vine bush pruned into a tree. They are ugly if you don't prune all the time and they provide no shade. I think the tree provider just wanted to make a lot of money off the city.
Any program for new trees must work with the community where they will be planted. People need to sponsor and volunteer to maintain the trees block by block. I can only handle the blocks I walk which is two miles a day. It should probably be a paid group of tree guardians which would also provide some jobs to locals. They need to talk to the homeowners and the homeless people living around the trees. The city, block club, tree group, community organization...can all work to plant and cultivate the trees but if homeless people, vagrants, others steal and destroy them, there will never be enough trees. As areas are revitalized there will be more successful tree plantings.
After I wrote this I took a walk in my area of SLA. I noticed trees were dead in front of apartment buildings, commercial buildings more than homes. Apartment and commercial building owners don't generally live at the property they own. They don't care about trees. They also probably don't realize it's their responsibility to maintain the parkway. No one enforces maintenance of the parkway or trees. One idea to aid in enforcement would be using Google maps street view. You can clearly see if there are trees just looking at the maps. They now even have green colored areas for trees on the maps. Sure Google would write a quick script to get addresses that don't have trees so notices about free trees could be sent with their property tax statements. Or maybe the city can instead of giving away free trees for people to plant on their private property they can go plant some on the parkways where they are missing. They will need to maintain them and should be drought tolerant, hardy and a type of tree people won't want to steal. No one waters the parkway in lower income areas.
An education campaign about maintaining the parkway might help. Another idea would be to make it mandatory to have a tree of certain species on parkways every so many feet maybe 25'. Average lot is 50 wide so two trees in front of each house away from street signs, utility wires sounds good. One would just have to enforce the tree mandate. If someone doesn't plant or request to have a tree planted by the city or doesn't maintain a tree, they can be fined, have a fee added to their property tax. A professional organization can then be paid to plant and maintain trees. At the last house I owned I added a sprinkler system to my parkway. I also paid an arborist to give me advice to make my tree healthier.
The problem with my idea is that lower income people will complain about having to pay a fine or do work to plant or maintain a tree. They will scream discrimination and blame it on the "racist" city. I have no faith that anything can be done because the people complaining about lack of trees don't want to do anything about it. They don't even want to maintain the parking strip which is their legal and financial responsibility. After following the tree issues for years I throw my hands in the air on this one.
Here is the LA Times link or you can read it for free via Yahoo news by searching the title.
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2024-10-11/there-is-no-easy-fix-study-reveals-attitudes-about-lack-of-trees-in-south-l-a
Mary Cummins of Cummins Real Estate is a certified residential licensed appraiser in Los Angeles, California. Mary Cummins is licensed by the California Bureau of Real Estate appraisers and has over 35 years of experience.
Mary Cummins, Mary K. Cummins, Mary Katherine Cummins, Mary, Cummins, #marycummins #animaladvocates #losangeles #california #wildlife #wildliferehabilitation #wildliferehabilitator #realestate #realestateappraiser #realestateappraisal #lawsuit real estate, appraiser, appraisal, instructor, teacher, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Pasadena, Brentwood, Bel Air, California, licensed, permitted, certified, single family, condo, condominium, pud, hud, fannie mae, freddie mac, fha, uspap, certified, residential, certified resident, apartment building, multi-family, commercial, industrial, expert witness, civil, criminal, orea, dre, brea insurance, bonded, experienced, bilingual, spanish, english, form, 1004, 2055, 1073, land, raw, acreage, vacant, insurance, cost, income approach, market analysis, comparative, theory, appraisal theory, cost approach, sales, matched pairs, plot, plat, map, diagram, photo, photographs, photography, rear, front, street, subject, comparable, sold, listed, active, pending, expired, cancelled, listing, mls, multiple listing service, claw, themls, historical appraisal, facebook, linkedin
DISCLAIMER: https://mary--cummins.blogspot.com/p/disclaimer-privacy-policy-for-blogs-by.html
