[mindslight]

Creating perverse incentives where real estate owners are responsible for the damages caused by trees that the city insists on planting (and real estate owners are likely prohibited from maintaining) is not what I'd call a "solution". Asset values going up doesn't do anything about those perverse incentives. And in fact rising asset values is actually a liability for long-term owner occupiers, ultimately just facilitating more financialization and centralization of wealth by professional investors.

I'm all for more trees. I'm just against this dynamic where such improvements are partially funded at the outset only, leaving the fallout as externalities that everyone has to suffer. If the city wants to plant trees that will eventually destroy the sidewalk, then the city should take on the responsibility for maintaining the sidewalks.

[amanaplanacanal]

If they are planting trees so that the roots destroy the sidewalk they are planting the wrong trees.