Report a Comment

@ksamiy,

If there is a massive environmental issue with this proposed development, then the county should take that very seriously. The county as a whole could do a much better job with storm water runoff. There is a general lack of permeanable surfaces, and this is something that needs to be addressed.

I would think that the Chelsea development could be done correctly environmentally, especially if some steps were taken to make surrounding areas more permeaable. The county has taken steps to the CBD more permable and put in more trees, which soak up pollutants, but there is still much work to be done.

FYI, I used to work for an international conservation NGO. That's why I disagreed with the assesment that DTSS has old growth trees. :) I love trees as much as anyone, especially big, old trees. I'd say 100 is middle aged for a tree. There are a lot of things to balance, however, when it comes to the environment.

The entire county needs more trees, and older trees do a better job of filtering. Denser, more walkable development, however, can help us save a lot of trees and cut down on vehicle miles driven.

by Patrick Thornton on May 29, 2012 5:53 pm • link • report

Does this comment violate Greater Greater Washington's comment policy? If so, you can report it using this form and an editor will take a look.

What is the major reason you believe the comment violates the policy?
Comment is spam.
Comment attacks other individuals personally.
Comment criticizes the level of knowledge of another commenter or contributor.
Comment discourages others from posting their ideas.
Commenter is impersonating someone else.
Comment uses profanity or abusive language.
Comment advocates violent acts or harm to another.
Comment was posted in multiple areas of the site.
Comment is arguing about the comment policy.
Other:

Your name:
Your email:

Administrator page • spam