Quote:
Originally Posted by CFrance
I can understand people not wanting them in their yards, but you have to admit that the further south you go beyond 466A, the more the land was just automatically cleared to facilitate building. The TG park is a beautiful exception, and I was hoping they would save those few trees in the Fruitland Park section and design some postal stations or parks/pools around them. It doesn't take much imagination to do that. This mowing and clearing of the land harkens back to the way they used to build suburban housing developments in the '70s and '80s. We called it scrape and burn.
|
I blame the "scrape and burn" method on the county, although developers do what's easy and cost effective. They don't care what they take out as long as it's convenient for their "master plan.".
Counties need to have laws that protect these trees and they need to be marked. Developers who take them out anyway, need to be fined heavily and not just a simple slap on the wrist.
Even though trees must be planted in Fruitland Park according to code, the new trees will only have a caliper of, perhaps, 2-3 inches, not unlike a stick.
Once built, Fruitland Park will still look like a wasteland for a number of years until the trees mature.