I’ve been told that this is a no-go for city planners because the sheer quantity of fallen fruit can be a walking hazard, and no one wants the legal liability. What it comes down to is that “free” fruit trees would require additional ongoing maintenance costs. Nothing nefarious, just logistical issues.
No doubt, but look at the black and white thinking in this thread. We can’t have fruit trees at all because they might interfere with sidewalks, or because city planners might get in a huff.
I’m not discounting the legitimate concerns of trafficability or zoning, but to write it off completely for these concerns is trash. If we can engineer a tailings dam and plan for 100 year floods that might ruin it, then we can figure out a way to permit fruit bearing trees in cities.
Because fruit on a grass field isn’t a hazard? Also who said anything about cars? Cyclists use the road too and it’s a much larger hazard for them than for cars. You’re the one thinking about cars here, not me.
I imagine if there were trees all over every street in town there would be a lot of mushy ass fruit swarming with flies on the ground.
It’s not a stable enough logistics chain to be viable, like, If I think “I’d like to possess a bowl of apples” I’m not going to like, patrol the streets and pick apples to that end.
I’ve been told that this is a no-go for city planners because the sheer quantity of fallen fruit can be a walking hazard, and no one wants the legal liability. What it comes down to is that “free” fruit trees would require additional ongoing maintenance costs. Nothing nefarious, just logistical issues.
Sounds like job creation to me
Agreed.
Fallen bananas are slippery.
what if the trees are planted in a park, far from the road?
How fucked is it that our first thoughts are about cars and sidewalks?
Cars, yeah it’s fucked. But I think keeping things walkable is good.
No doubt, but look at the black and white thinking in this thread. We can’t have fruit trees at all because they might interfere with sidewalks, or because city planners might get in a huff.
I’m not discounting the legitimate concerns of trafficability or zoning, but to write it off completely for these concerns is trash. If we can engineer a tailings dam and plan for 100 year floods that might ruin it, then we can figure out a way to permit fruit bearing trees in cities.
I think people are thinking more that if you want to feed people just give them food you buy is more cost effective.
Because fruit on a grass field isn’t a hazard? Also who said anything about cars? Cyclists use the road too and it’s a much larger hazard for them than for cars. You’re the one thinking about cars here, not me.
You’re coming on pretty strong and I haven’t even had my coffee.
There are other comments about the topics I am getting at. I’m not attacking you but agreeing with you.
Chill bruh.
I’d say that’s a question for city planners.
I imagine if there were trees all over every street in town there would be a lot of mushy ass fruit swarming with flies on the ground.
It’s not a stable enough logistics chain to be viable, like, If I think “I’d like to possess a bowl of apples” I’m not going to like, patrol the streets and pick apples to that end.
You would if you were hungry and didn’t have money
You mean like shoveling sidewalks in the winter?
Oh no.
The horror.
Does the snow smell like shit and attract wasps and animals that shit all over.
As opposed to the neighborhood dogs shitting all over?
And yeah having pollinators back would be helpful.
Bringing nature back is a good thing.
I thought they were banned to prevent free food and thus discouraged homeless people.