Today’s post comes via email from one of the fabulous folks in Helotes. They are less than amused by Toll Brothers’ “greenwashing” campaign touting its tree preservation efforts. It seems that TB forgot its own propaganda when blasting away trees and hills to build its “Sonoma Verde” project…
While browsing through the Real Estate Section of the San Antonio Express News yesterday, April 19, 2008, I noticed an article in the Real Estate Briefcase: “Toll Brothers Expo set for weekend”. I usually scan these sections looking at the new subdivisions exploding in our Northwest Bexar County Hill Country.
I found it almost laughable that a company, who has ravaged our tree-covered hilltops with explosions and bulldozers, turning the sea of green into a barren moonscape, can proudly and erroneously tout that they want the public to “learn about land planning, community design and Toll Brothers’ architecture and quality control”.
Piquing my curiosity, I viewed the main Toll Brothers website. There is a section titled “Building Green”. The first paragraph purports that they “make a point of taking advantage of opportunities that benefit the environment. Nationwide, Toll Brothers encourages environmental awareness by partnering with conservation groups such as the National Wildlife Federation and the Audubon Society – earning certificates, etc…” It continues by stating “these certifications assure our residents that the natural beauty of their communities will remain a proud legacy for generations to come.”
In the following paragraph they speak of harmonizing with the scenic beauty of surrounding landscapes; incorporating the existing hills, trees and ponds; and, have saved and transplanted thousand of trees. Perhaps Toll Brothers failed to mention this to the builders with whom they have contracted. It is obvious that they do not visit the construction sites they control or simply do not care.
I hardly call demolishing an entire hillside and eliminating anything green or natural an “award winning effort”! Even the name of one particular subdivision, “Sonoma Verde” is a joke. Where is the green? There are endangered species in the karst geology, all wildlife habitats, and the endangered species corridor which has been devastated, not to mention the sheer erosion created by the barren landscape, influencing our creeks and streams.
The intrusion and disruption of a once pristine part of our Hill Country for the quick buck by out-of-town developers in the unregulated county is shameful. But, hey! It’s not in their back yard. It is up to the citizens to take action to stop this trend.
For more about Toll Brothers, check out this video titled Travel San Antonio:
…one thing I am clear about is that giving out billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to the housing industry that reaped in mega-profits during those years is profoundly wrong.
One locally notorious corporation, KBHome, is set to reap a windfall from this legislation. KB saw its pre-tax income jump from $154 million in 1998 to $1,374 million in 2006… a nearly 800% increase. Sure, it dropped back to a mere $768 million in 2006 and then to a loss of $1,461 million in 2007. Under the proposed legislation, KBHome will, by my calculations, receive a $565 million gift from taxpayers.
Apart from being enormously unfair, the bill seems to reward those who are most responsible for the problem, and to even exacerbate the root causes of the mortgage crisis. For instance:
Homebuilders profited enormously from sales of houses enabled by sub-prime mortgages. Why do they need more rewards?
It is likely that homebuilders helped create the problem by working hand-in-hand with sub-prime lenders to boost sales of their product.
One of the stated purposes of the bill is to prop up house prices. However, astronomical prices are at the very root of the housing problem. Who can afford the median price of $400,000 or more that houses fetch in many markets?
Where is the evidence that the “trickle-down” economics of giving billions to homebuilders will in any way help those in danger of foreclosure?
This legislation is corporate welfare at its worst.
Two very different reports point out the value of trees, not only in combating global warming but in helping weak economies. The Giving Trees tells about an Oregon scientist whose research refutes the belief that old forests do not absorb carbon.
Law’s data show that this 90-year-old forest is, in fact, at the peak of its ability to absorb carbon. The uptake of carbon by ponderosa pines increases gradually, then reaches a plateau at some point between 50 years and 90 years. Once this plateau is reached, the trees and the soil will together continue to form a rich bank of stored carbon that cannot be equaled by any newly sprouted stand. During her work in California and the Pacific Northwest, she’s found forests as old as 800 years that continue to absorb more carbon than they release.
Pati Ruiz Corzo is the director of the Sierra Gorda Biosphere Reserve, a protected area about the size of Rhode Island that is a five-hour drive north of Mexico City. When she left her teaching job in the city and moved to the region 25 years ago searching for a simpler life, she found the place littered with trash and stripped of much of its natural vegetation. She decided it would be her life’s work to restore the forest and to create new jobs for the people living in the biosphere.
Not only has she has boosted her community’s economy, she has brought water back. How strange that in Texas, folks claim that we have to destroy trees to help the aquifer.
Corzo’s efforts are beginning to transform the once-depleted landscape into a thriving habitat with fertile topsoil, a replenished water table and an abundance of newly planted vegetation. She’s also developing an eco-tourism industry with rustic lodge accommodations and craft shops for local artisans. It’s already a popular destination for birdwatchers. But Margolis also learns that many of the men in the community still head to the United States to find work, as they struggle to support their families off the local land.
Now with carbon trading a hot “commodity,” Corzo sees an opportunity to use her forest to raise money on the carbon market.
My Mountain Laurels are in full bloom today. Their flowers effuse a sweet fragrance that smells like the grape soda I drank as a kid. Bees love ’em.
This tree was transplanted as a sapling from the Medina Lake area more than 40 years ago. Today it’s over 20 feet tall.
Mountain Laurel blooming with purple flowers
Mmmm, grape soda
However, this magnificent laurel doesn’t qualify as being a tree under San Antonio’s tree ordinance because it’s too small. City Council eliminated protections for these and other “trash trees” and “shrubs” in 2006.
It illustrates the power of the development industry that they can easily obtain such senseless legislation. Council ignored voters and gave the developers virtually everything they asked for in 2006. It apparently wasn’t enough, though, because it looks like they’re coming back for more this year.
A report by the Center for Urban Forest Research, called Why Shade Streets?, shows that street trees save up to 60% on street maintenance. Shaded streets deteriorate more slowly than streets exposed to hot summer sunlight. Moreover, shaded sidewalks encourage folks to get out of their cars and walk.
Residential street, without tree planting strips, in a recently built San Antonio subdivision
In San Antonio, with its scorching summers, this must be especially true. Unfortunately, developers succeeded in overturning a rule requiring them to provide a planting area, for trees, between the sidewalk and street. Consequently, taxpayers will likely pay more for maintaining these streets than for those in older neighborhoods where street trees are a common amenity.
