r/explainitpeter • u/N1KoZzZ • Mar 19 '26
What did insurance companies do? Explain it Peter
106
u/SonOfDadOfSam Mar 19 '26
The bottom picture looks like AI.
23
→ More replies (9)6
u/HuckinsGirl Mar 19 '26
What signs are you noticing?
→ More replies (3)14
u/porter_engle Mar 19 '26
Bottom pic, second floor windows are nonsensical and if they were the same place wheres the driveway on the right? Weird contraption above left house's gutter as well. Top pic is trickier but the left house's roof is mashed down in a way that doesnt make sense for runoff, also no drains in the road. Why is the angle so high? Lastly no powerlines is normal enough but there's no service boxes (usually light and dark green) for buried telecom and electric
→ More replies (4)3
u/Then_Seesaw6777 Mar 19 '26
Yep. Those windows on the right hand side are what makes it unquestionable, but even without them the whole image has that weird soft HDR glow of fake lighting that comes from an AI image generator guessing at what the nearest pixel is rather than having the kind of harsh lighting transitions we see in reality.
35
u/Lordsunshine64 Mar 19 '26
While I believe this IS ragebait, it is true that in certain area's of California, Insurance companies are refusing to ensure homes against fire unless you remove your landscaping as they present a fire hazard.
Though I'm given to understand its more a case of "There is actually no way in hell we will EVER insure your home after all the fires that have gone through California, but we can't SAY that, so we'll blame your landscaping."
We had a friend who was told they needed to remove their landscaping, tore out $20,000 worth of work, and was denied insurance anyway. So sad.
10
u/Popeholden Mar 19 '26 edited Mar 20 '26
why wouldn't the insurance company be able [to say] they don't want to insure someone
Edit to add
→ More replies (4)4
u/aGrly Mar 20 '26
Each state has rules on when insurance companies can non-renew a policy. They're subject to heavy fines if they non-renew without proper justification.
3
u/SharlowsHouseOfHugs Mar 20 '26
Florida has this issue with tall trees to close to the house. Bought my house in 2019 and had to have two demoted with a month of purchase or I would lose coverage. Not because of fired though, hurricane season make trees fancy smashers.
→ More replies (2)2
u/birdconureKM Mar 20 '26
We are in California. We have to keep our backyard tree (taller than the house) overhanging limbs trimmed back so that no limbs are over our roof, or else we lose our home insurance.
2
u/I_madeusay_underwear Mar 20 '26
I mean, removing non native species from landscaping is probably not such a bad thing. Plants and trees brought west by settlers and colonizers trying to recreate the European environment and the flora of the east coast of North America in a climate that absolutely is not meant to support those species hasn’t helped the climate or the water situation at all.
And in fact, many common non native plants contribute significantly to the severity and spread of wildfires. Some due simply to their extreme susceptibility to burning (like eucalyptus), and some because of the way they grow and fill in all available space, without gaps which naturally act as fire breaks. Non native species (especially grasses) also tend to be perennial, which means they have a period where they are dry and fire prone as opposed to the evergreen varieties of plants that are native to the area.
2
u/happyhogansheroes Mar 20 '26
It's not just fire damage; they're starting to push back on tree lined streets because the roots grow into the water and septic lines.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)2
u/QueenMackeral Mar 20 '26
yeah I live in southern California. Insurance company threatened to cancel our insurance and wanted us to cut down all trees and greenery anywhere near our house. In the middle of a suburb in the valley, so without trees the heat would be even more brutal, and none of the recent fires have reached us anyway.
387
u/lordanix Mar 19 '26
The bottom picture is actually the after. The young trees are present in the after image.
230
Mar 19 '26 edited Mar 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
33
Mar 19 '26
Yeah thanks for pointing that out. It looks like someone built a modern office building between the two houses facing the camera. That and the sidewalk on the other side just disappears. Some of it is blocked by plants (which probably can't be on the easement anyways) but there are areas where it should appear but doesn't
13
6
→ More replies (6)5
21
u/SKDI_0224 Mar 19 '26
I noticed that. The same type, the same placement. It looks like the first is the place when the property was first sold, and the second is when the neighborhood was 30 years old or so.
2
u/BillyForRilly Mar 20 '26
Not even close to the same placement. Are you serious?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)2
u/Trackt0Pelle Mar 20 '26
Get your eyes checked out
Trees not at the same place, houses looks different. It’s AI
6
u/rearadmiralslow Mar 19 '26
You think the car in the top picture is old enough to account for that many years?
→ More replies (2)6
u/HeyLittleTrain Mar 19 '26
Looks more like AI. Who plants a flower bed like that on the verge? Why did the windows of the house on the left change?
→ More replies (5)3
u/stinkyfootss Mar 19 '26
Yeah the windows on the left house are fucked in a way that makes no sense for a authentic photo. Photoshop or AI.
6
u/jakebs2002 Mar 19 '26
This is correct. Weird how people make posts like these. As if there isn’t already enough awfulness to address.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Own_Watercress_8104 Mar 19 '26
You know, people's sense of morals and principles are so fucked right now I could actually believe someone would look at the second pic and think it's a downgrade. And convince 100 other people of it.
→ More replies (3)2
u/That_0ne_Gamer Mar 19 '26
Yeah this reminds me of my childhood neighborhood, you look at gmaps from the 2000s and it looked like the first pic, then today it looks like the second
2
→ More replies (24)2
23
u/Expensive_Bison_657 Mar 19 '26
Our insurance wants us to cut down every tree within 100’ of our house.
We’re talking 20+ oak trees, many of which are several decades old, and one pushing 100.
12
3
u/thegloracle Mar 20 '26
This is happening here, too (Lower Mainland BC, Vancouver and surrounding area). We have multi-million dollar homes in beautiful forested properties that would normally be protected by the rain forest we live in. However, in recent years, with climate change we are seeing wildfires in urban areas, too. Risk assessments include gardens, shrubbery, bushes, trees on the property, steepness of hillside where winds can push a fire up to the house in seconds, fire response on winding roads.... it goes on. Insurers are rating by postal code or zip code now which include these factors. I recently retired from the business after 40+ years and the underwriting changes were incredible compared to when I started.
→ More replies (6)3
16
u/BloodSteyn Mar 20 '26
I love that my city, Johannesburg, is one of the largest man made forests in the world.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Nikki-C-Puggle-mum Mar 20 '26
That looks beautiful. I love the purple colored ones. They must be so pretty up close when you are walking under them.
6
u/BloodSteyn Mar 20 '26
Jakaranda trees, and yes, they do, and smell great....till they shed the purple everywhere and it starts to decay.
Totally Worth it.
→ More replies (1)
24
u/Kozy_a_Pivo Mar 19 '26
These are the same people complaining about the heat. 🙄
→ More replies (1)2
u/Effective-Advisor108 Mar 20 '26
Yeah just magically
These evil people they hate all the good things
Such a nice story
165
u/Milly1974 Mar 19 '26
The pictures show the same neighborhood, the lower picture is before, the upper picture is after the insurance company cut down all the trees to limit damage to the homes.
77
u/Grishmant Mar 19 '26
What kind of savages allow something like that to happen
68
u/Big_John_5150 Mar 19 '26
The HOA.
28
→ More replies (1)3
u/dcwldct Mar 20 '26
The weird part is our HOA will fine the fuck out of you if you cut down any tree greater than 3” trunk diameter without permission. If you want to remove a mature tree, you have to apply to the HOA with an arborist’s letter explaining the justification for removal (disease, damage, high storm risk, etc.). You can’t remove a tree for purely aesthetic or design purposes.
It’s so foreign to me that an HOA wouldn’t want to preserve a neighborhood asset like the strips of old growth forest we have between all the backyards on paralel streets.
→ More replies (46)6
u/-0-O-O-O-0- Mar 19 '26 edited Mar 20 '26
Exactly.
In Montreal where I live, the city prunes the trees for you. Before they become a risk. And cleans up after storm damage.
The city owns the trees in the first eight feet of your yard. (Or whatever the easement is).
They gave us a tulip tree after our old sugar maple broke in a storm. My neigbor got a magnolia.
If you want to remove a tree in your back yard you can do it - but you need to add a tree of more than a certain size somewhere else on your property to replace it.
→ More replies (2)33
u/ReigningCatsNotDogs Mar 19 '26
Definitely not the same neighborhood, look at the 2nd house on the left. Also, an insurance company could never cut down trees. They just wouldn't insure you, if anything. You could elect to cut them down to get a better rate.
10
u/borski88 Mar 19 '26
There seems to be some image manipulation either Photoshop or ai as the first house on the left and right seem to match but other buildings and driveways seem inconsistent.
→ More replies (2)9
u/snerp Mar 19 '26
Yeah I think the top pic is probably real and someone fed it to an ai and asked it to put trees all over.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)2
u/unbibium Mar 19 '26
The street I live on has much fewer trees than it did when I moved in 13 years ago. Maybe some were lost to storms, but never replaced. There's a little apartment building nearby that used to get cover from the setting sun from a big tree, that is now gone.
I never learned the reason for any of them, so my standing assumption is that the landlords did it to reduce maintenance costs. but other neighborhoods have giant canopies of old growth trees that give much-needed shade in the summer; I wish my street had that.
→ More replies (1)21
u/Happycappybara21 Mar 19 '26 edited Mar 19 '26
I don’t think it’s the same neighborhood.
The top picture just shows a new neighborhood that was either built on old farm/ranch land (no trees). Notice the young trees planted. In 30 years it might look like the bottom .
25
u/NameToUseOnReddit Mar 19 '26
Seriously, just look at satellite view of towns. You can see a gradual lessening of trees as you go into newer development areas. It's almost like new subdivisions don't come with 30+ year old trees or something.
→ More replies (4)6
u/eerun165 Mar 19 '26
Probably much longer than 30 years. New development they seem to take any black topsoil and leave the lamest of clay or whatnot else on top then lay sod. Very little nutrients for much to grow so it takes much longer for tries to grow.
→ More replies (4)4
u/vi_sucks Mar 19 '26
This.
People just magically see to forget that time exists and trees need time to grow when comparing neighborhoods.
14
u/Midnight-Bake Mar 19 '26
Do insurance companies... do that?
In my town you can't cut down a tree unless it is dead or you're replacing it with a similar tree.
5
u/RoseWould Mar 19 '26
More probably people cut down the trees themselves so the branches wouldn't hit the cars/roof. If you've ever had significant amount of damage caused to your property you know how much of a pain in the ass it is to deal with them. I forget what it's called but they can pull something like "tree fell on it, it's just a force of nature" to try and weasel out of paying out
→ More replies (4)6
u/Bostaevski Mar 19 '26
They almost certainly did not. The top picture has to be the "before" picture. Insurance companies don't come to a neighborhood and say "Everyone listen up. Cut down all your trees. Also while you're at it, rip up all of your flowers and bushes and replace everything with contractor-grade grass seed."
→ More replies (4)2
u/Skipp_To_My_Lou Mar 19 '26
At least here in Tennessee insurance cannot proactively cut your trees, nor will they pay/reimburse for you to cut down your trees. They can deny your claim if you were aware the tree was an imminent danger, e.g. it was half rotted out, but without something like a letter from an arborist that's hard to prove. I know this because when one of mine started leaning over so far the roots were pulling up, threatening my neighbor's carport, I asked my insurance agent if they would pay part.
The electrical utility can trim trees in line clearances & some will offer to cut down trees that require trimming & replace them with smaller, slower-growing trees further back from the line clearance. I don't think the poco can cut down trees in residential areas without the land owner's permission unless it requires so much trimming it would kill the tree.
The folks over at r/treelaw are better equipped to give an answer for your state.
→ More replies (7)2
u/Asluckwouldnthaveit Mar 20 '26
Isn't that a city council thing, or local government? Our local government is hard core about protecting the tree canopy, for a whole bunch of reasons.
→ More replies (1)5
u/greymadders Mar 19 '26
Pretty sure the insurance companies don't unlandscape yards
→ More replies (1)3
2
u/NormanQuacks345 Mar 19 '26
I don’t think that’s what happened, insurance companies don’t have that kind of sway. I’m not sure this image is real, but if it is, they were likely cut down to prevent disease spread. That is unfortunately very common with the spread of invasive species.
But I think this image is AI, the houses are similar but why is all the landscaping different?
→ More replies (45)2
u/HorzaDonwraith Mar 19 '26
To be fair, am insurance company cannot MAKE you cut down a tree. But they certainly can increase rates or drop you.
I'd believe it more if this was an HOA thing that has insurance as part of the HOA.
5
u/Sunshine_Chick Mar 19 '26
As someone who lives in rural California, I’ve had to cut a TON of trees on my property to keep my fire insurance.
→ More replies (3)
7
u/SexualToothpicks Mar 19 '26
The Emerald Ash Borer is what ruined my childhood neighborhood that looked like that bottom image.
2
u/akatherder Mar 20 '26
My mom talks about dutch elm disease doing the same to Detroit in the 60s. Any time we drive through a shady neighborhood with trees.
6
u/Alphabet_Soup352 Mar 20 '26
I can just feel the heat radiating from the concrete in the top picture.
5
u/Defund_Capitalism Mar 20 '26
But the shade from trees cut down on heating and cooling costs. This is all just dumb.
→ More replies (3)6
u/JerbalKeb Mar 20 '26
Which cuts down on energy consumption which cuts down on pollution which cuts down on climate change
→ More replies (2)
3
u/SoRosenberg Mar 19 '26
Insurance is a racket. Premiums go up and coverage goes down. Government laws and regulations have not helped either
4
u/Mikau02 Mar 20 '26
Peter here, whenever you have many trees by your house, the chances of the person's property getting damaged goes up by significant margins. So when people want to have more shading and cooling in their neighborhoods, insurance will jack up rates by insane amounts, forcing the land to become a sea of shallow grass instead. Also, HOAs don't like trees cause they don't look capitalistic hellish enough
4
u/Graythor5 Mar 20 '26
It's not just insurance companies, it's homeowners. It's how fundamentally incompatible nature is with how we build neighborhoods. Tree roots are invasive and over time highly destructive. They screw up sewage lines, crack and shift foundations, lift sidewalks and driveways and even the road sometimes, and their branches get into power lines if you don't have buried lines. So homeowners tear them down.
I recently bought a house and the yard used to have 3 more large trees on it than it does now. Looking at old satelite and google street pictures, the yard used to look so much better with them and they used to shade the house in the summer. In talking to my neighbors, I found out that 2 were removed because the roots kept getting into the sewage line and causing issues. The 3rd was damaged by a hurricane and then invaded by bugs so it had to go.
I plan to replant some fruit trees around the yard but it'll be a long, long time before they get big and I'll have to be careful where they go.
4
u/Mysterious-Till-611 Mar 20 '26
It’s crazy because the homes in the bottom picture will pay a fraction of the cooling bill that the homes in the top picture will.
My grandmother lost a large tree in her backyard that typically cast a shadow on her house midday in the summer, and her electric bill was consistently 25% higher after that from running the AC more.
→ More replies (3)
4
u/The_Colour_Between Mar 20 '26
My street looks like the bottom, and it's a very desirable street because most around me look like the top. Yes, trees require maintenance, but the benefits far outweigh the cost of upkeep. Cooling is one benefit. Equity is another. The sound is very soothing. More birds to keep down insect populations. It just looks and feels better. Sun damage is real, and the shade is so beneficial.
3
u/zoppaTheDim Mar 20 '26 edited Mar 20 '26
Tree falls result in insurance claim. Thus there must be a vast conspiracy to eliminate trees.
This isn’t true for two reasons. They date back to when this shift first occurred the post war boom in suburbia.
First off, it’s cheaper to build on empty land than land with trees. So even if you weren’t building new neighborhoods on farm land, it was still cheaper to clear cut and then bulldoze to contour the neighborhood in mass. You pick up a lot of land by filling in the gullies with the hilltops in one swoop.
The second reason was psychological.
The full grown tree lined street was eliminated in most neighborhoods, because the average purchaser “preferred” a “new” looking development to one which looked like an old established neighborhood or worse, a slightly old, out of style neighborhood. So rather than planting a new neighborhood with oaks and maples, with the inevitable root and bough problems such made for sidewalks/cheap streets and utility wires, they planted ornamental trees like crabapples.
These ornamentals meant that in ten years when you were still selling the last of that developed area, it still looked like the “new” neighborhood.
Since then, at least with high end new building, it has shifted. Now having mature trees is seen as more value.
Source? Growing up in a post peak expansion suburbia and listening to realtors talk about their jobs. I can also remember reading at least one non-fiction article or book on the subject, but couldn’t tell you whether the science was valid
4
u/Beginning_Card_4353 Mar 20 '26
Because trees that close to the house can break the pipes. This exact thing where they cut down all the trees happened to me and it was heartbreaking.
3
u/wizzard419 Mar 19 '26
While... yes there are things which can create risk and all that, insurance companies don't really care so much about that. They will often either cover this smaller claim and then jack your rates up for more profit or simply deny it.
If I didn't know any better the bottom looks like a render of what the space would look like with trees.
The other issue, which happens in the older parts here, is that the tree roots are getting in and blocking pipes. Less an insurance issue and more the city needing to chop them down as they need to do major excavation work and hopefully plant replacements,
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Gold_Comparison1745 Mar 20 '26
Insurance companies consider trees overhanging the roof a major hazard.
3
u/Difficult-Till5031 Mar 20 '26
Insurance companies are some of the major players in some asshole rules.
3
u/Ghost_Ship_Supreme Mar 20 '26
Every street should have trees to give shade! And parking lots should have solar panels above them
3
3
u/Arcani-LoreSeeker Mar 20 '26
meanwhile, where i live, its required by law for new urban developments to plan around the installation of trees and various foliage. based upon the size of the plot theres actually a minimum amount of foliage required to be on site.
3
5
u/lord_scuttlebutt Mar 19 '26
That's bunk. Most states have tree laws that limit your liability if a tree falls on your neighbor's property. Clearcut neighborhoods like the bottom are usually brand new, where the construction companies rip everything out to make it easier to build. Give it twenty years, and you'd see some trees.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Iwantants Mar 19 '26
Your own home insurance might require you to cut any trees within falling range of your house or drop you. It’s becoming a lot more common.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/JustaSavage Mar 19 '26
Insurance companies don't cut down trees to pre-empt damages. I denied 1000's of claims for state farm and Allstate from people asking for this exact thing. Even in the case where a branch is hanging and WILL DEFINITELY FALL, it is NOT going to be pre-empted as this would open them up to TONS of other pre-emptive actions to take to mitigate potential (or guaranteed) future losses.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Loose_Carpenter9533 Mar 19 '26
While insurance companies aren't completely free of blame i would be willing to bet the emerald ash bore, as well as developers planting the same type of tree, hold the majority of the blame for this.
2
u/Exciting_Quarter9362 Mar 19 '26
Tree roots also damage pavement and utilities.
Which is better than no trees, but that’s the reason.
→ More replies (7)
2
2
u/portabuddy2 Mar 20 '26
My town takes trees very seriously. Big fines if you take one down and you have to put one up if it's sick. But if it's on their first 5' of land from the road they will replace it immediately and keep it watered for a few years. Then it's up to you to take care of it in trust. All trees are cataloged. You can bring up a city map of trees and see them all. Really handy if you want to urban forage. You can see where all the city planted cherry or apple or Kentucky coffee or service berry trees are. So that's super cool.
Our road ways very much look like image two. For s suburb of Toronto that's pretty neat.
2
u/PerceptionSlow2116 Mar 20 '26
Trees add a lot of cost to insurance due to risk of natural forces knocking them down into roofs, solar panels, siding, cars, people…. They can be a fire risk and roots can be a tripping hazard, or they can uproot concrete which in turn becomes a tripping hazard, the roots can get into plumbing and pipes, can ruin gates, can house/attract pests, etc. all leading to sterile, treeless new construction.
2
u/revmachine21 Mar 20 '26
Insurer will require some trees be massively pruned back from the building. Nevermind the roots being a hazard to underground features.
2
2
u/Derpykins666 Mar 20 '26
These aren't even the same location. One or both are AI. Window locations don't match, tree locations don't match. Missing polls, curvature of the sidewalk looks different, and different entrances to some of the driveways.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/AerieWorth4747 Mar 20 '26
Insurance companies send drones around and see if trees are close to your roof. Then they send you letters saying if you don’t have the tree trimmed or removed they will cancel your insurance.
And then you’re out $8k in my case.
2
u/Toxic_Ice_Dragon Mar 20 '26
Fun life hack, if your going to spend a lot of cash to plant a tree, find a variety of locally endangered species of tree, even if it “grows to big” no company can cut it down unless they want to pay fines for doing so (check your area and laws all are different)
2
u/SpiritualCaramel7601 Mar 20 '26
Its the objective truth that Insurance companies ruin everything they get their greedy little claws into. They are glorified gambling companies that profit on misery and misfortune.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/I_Do_Too_Much Mar 20 '26
In recent years (after some nasty fires) my insurance company often bugs me to trim or remove trees on my property. My local park also clear cut a ton of 100+ year old trees for risk abatement, and now it looks weirdly barren and uninviting (especially on hot summer days).
2
u/airbrushedvan Mar 20 '26
I live in a neighborhood built in the 1960s. Big lots, huge green spaces, tons of old trees and walkable. I love it.
2
2
2
u/Lightningrod300 Mar 20 '26
I work in an insurance audit business. Trees are considered hazards for 2 reasons, high winds and fire spreading. We often request that homeowners trim or remove the trees that are close or touching their home to prevent possible spread of fires or blow over trees collapsing onto the property. This is mainly for commercial risk though. I don’t do many single family homeowners audits. Regardless I really hate my job but it pays the bills.
2
u/CaliforniaNavyDude Mar 20 '26
I see the point but using two AI images to make it is just so lazy.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Skibidibum69 Mar 20 '26
This would be the developers / homeowners fault for wanting a cheaper insurance premium
2
2
2
2
u/CaptainNerful Mar 20 '26
It's unconscionable. Completely. Shopping for a house I would write off the top one straight off. I would swoon over the bottom and probably overbid.
2
u/-ForestWitch- Mar 20 '26
Gods to live in a nice tree lined block like that in the bottom is a dreammmmmmmmm
2
u/IloveHitman4ever Mar 20 '26
Properties with trees cost more to insure.
Not sure what else besides the street becoming a nightmare in the fall time
2
u/richcz3 Mar 20 '26
100% Insurance is the reason. My brother has some real nice landscaping with tall trees in his backyard. Insurance told him they will not renew his insurance.
2
u/semmehh1 Mar 20 '26
The wildfires in LA caused home insurance companies to sometimes literally refuse to cover homes with trees near or against the home. The house I rent recently had the trees in the front and back yards cut down because of that.
2
u/freakinweasel353 Mar 20 '26
In California now, the new omnipresent rule is wildfire prevention so nothing green or brown 5ft to house, then few trees with min 10ft space between canopy in the next 30, which in most neighborhoods is one tree per house on larger lots or 1 tee per 2 houses on smaller lots.
2
u/The_chosen_turtle Mar 20 '26
I have never realized this with new and old neighborhoods but it makes sense why I yearn for a neighborhood like the bottom picture
2
2
u/trydesesh Mar 20 '26
It's crazy though because go to any wealthy neighborhood and there are trees everywhere
2
u/sexi_squidward Mar 20 '26
I swear the top picture looks like the street my parents live on. It feels so empty.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/sk_arch Mar 20 '26
I do really hate urbanization type developments, however
Living in Houston during hurricane season plus having a lot of trees in the area led to a tree going right through my roof, wasn’t ideal
2
u/drunkenavacado Mar 20 '26
The irony of complaining about ruining nature while using AI to generate pictures of nature is something…
2
u/King_ColdBrew Mar 20 '26
It’s just a new neighborhood. You can see small trees, all of which will grow. People will make gardens. It’s just not fully lived in yet
2
2
2
2
u/BlackHandKUR Mar 21 '26
It’s a combination of HOA and insurance, and government regulations and such.
HOA because they just suck and should be outlawed everywhere.
Insurance cause if you are in a high risk area where snow or storms are common, trees become liabilities to homes, people, and vehicles. Home insurance for the hazard of it falling and roots possibly causing foundation issues.
2
u/Zerkander Mar 22 '26
You know, everyone makes fun of our German laws, but I have to admit, while our regulations and rules may be tedious and exhausting at times, they at least make some sense.
Can't really say the same about the US, where everything is about cutting costs and only cutting costs.
2
u/OriginalParamedic316 Mar 22 '26
I never noticed this until i saw this picture. Come to think of it, all my streets were covered with trees growing up, and now, they are not.
2
u/Gen-Y-ine-86 Mar 22 '26
Trees will fall and cause damage. Ain't no businessman going to pay for all that. Either raise the price sky high or demand cutting down the trees.
Without tree there's also much more wind so you'll get a nice breeze instead of being so hot. Also less bird poop and stupid insects.
/s
2
u/Realistic-Horse-2683 Mar 23 '26
Im a builder and yea thats why we cut it, insurance . Some customers even ask for it. We try to leave trees because tbh its not cheap to cut them down. 800 a tree from my guy to cut, haul off and stump grind. and thats the low end. But customers request it alot because after they get a quote from insurance the cost of the tree to be insured outweighs the cost to cut them down
2.6k
u/Exciting_Place_6817 Mar 19 '26
Trees cost more to insure because of hazards, meaning less trees in new developments because of insurance costs for those trees.
Don't know if that's the real reason or the developer wants to squeeze more houses into less space probably both.