Ron Rizzo passed along this rather bizarre opinion from "forester" Geoffrey Donovan.It seems that researchers from the Pacific Northwest Research Station (Who pays for these goofy things? You do.) have deciphered data about trees and the crime rate which suggests that neighborhoods with big trees have less crime than neighborhoods that have only skinny trees.
Donovan believes this is because large trees are "a signal to crooks that a neighborhood is well cared for, making it more likely criminals will be caught." But, Mr. Donovan, big trees need less care than young trees. And any city dweller knows that the big trees are in older neighborhoods where there are generally less burglar alarms and less expensive stuff to rip off. Look at any city's crime stats and you'll see greater rates of burglary in the older parts of town than the newer, skinny-treed suburbs.
These things do not deter "forester" Donovan, however. He's got a theory and he's stickin' to it. Indeed, he argues "that small trees may aid criminals by providing hiding places for criminals and obstructing views." Huh? Wouldn't big trees provide more cover? Wouldn't even the thin thug prefer a big tree to hide behind instead of a leafless sapling?
I give up. "Forester" Donovan is a paid public employee. He must know best.
