Well, if the house seen in the distance is Alan J. Savada’s "Casa Bocca Di Leone", than we are witnessing a "tree carnage" that barely lights a candle to a nearby "architectural carnage". That is one of the worst examples of 1980s faux-modernism I've ever seen, and I've seen plenty of these very hideous kinds of McMansions in the new money suburbs of DC like McLean. It would look ugly even in Beverly Hills...in NW DC, it is an abomination. It looks like a cross between a Staten Island funeral home and a Motel 8 in Mesa, Arizona.

But back to the matter at hand...what's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander apparently. These people (the neighbors) already live in a development that surely destroyed plenty of large trees. Yes it, looks like one one was left on a lot, to the left of the beech. (I am guessing the beech is on an adjacent, undeveloped lot.) But it surely had neighbors that were that large as well...and Mr. Savada's living room wasn't designed with an open atrium to surround a 100 tall tree LOL. If DC is going to allow these lots to be developed AT ALL these days - which to me really ought to be the question here - when we "know about" global warming in a way we didn't in the late 80s, to me, they should kiss their precious trees goodbye. By which I mean, any trees on those lots. I actually agree with the arborist that the amount of grading on a .25 acre lot required to build what will surely be a huge McMansion, could seriously damage the roots of the tulip poplar. And besides...let's look at it this way, let's weigh the environmental cost of removing one tree, with the environmental cost of REBUILDING AN ENTIRE HOUSE because a 100' tree crushed it. Surely will do more damage, or have a 'higher GWP' than removing one tree.

At the end of the day,

• the world is overpopulated
• people gotta live somewhere
• the rich will live where they wish to, because they can
• people SHOULD have a right to do as they please with their properties, within reason
• it's unreasonable to think one tree is going to magically fix any of the above, or global warming

If DC is so gung-ho to preserve natural spaces, tax the rich in NW with a special 'forest preservation tax' and use the money on a land fund. Buy these lots at the market rate and put them into a land covenant that prevents them from being developed, ever.

Maybe I am going blind but there is no link there for me to see.........

Its the word ’this’ in green. Not easy to see. I wish they didn’t repeatedly refer to it as a ’poplar’.

Hopefully the offender will have to pay the fine. But a recent court case here in the Detroit area (Canton Township) upheld private property rights and overturned an ordinance based fine imposed for illegal tree removal.

"... If you plant 100 trees instead of one, it’ll make up for some of the difference.” Sadly, the average person doesn't understand or appreciate the value that heritage/landmark/legacy trees contribute to the local community and the environment. 100+ year old native trees like the one removed should be considered irreplaceable. Even planting 100 new trees as the PO suggested really doesn't compensate for the loss

"people SHOULD have a right to do as they please with their properties" I'd have to disagree with this as an unqualified statement. Private property rights should have some limits when the actions of PO's have a significant negative impact on the surrounding community and the environment. Agree completely with the idea of using public funds to purchase and preserve properties with high value trees and vegetation.

Looks likes the tree has/had some heart rot going on anyway, so removal may have been a good thing (if slightly premature).

Arbordave, I modified it to say, "within reason", and that is obviously something people aren't going to agree on! Respect your opinion even if different from mine.

And yes I noticed the start of heart rot but didn't mention it because, in a sense, (the sense in which I see the issue) it's immaterial. But your comment helps point out how it's illogical and pseudoscientific to say the very biggest trees are the ones more 'deserving' of preservation...at least around here, because eastern US trees tend to have a finite lifespan. My lot had 1 huge white oak that towered above the canopy of the other trees on all the adjacent lots . It was a tree when everything else was farmland. About 10 years ago it fell on its own on a bright clear windy day (fortunately, away from my lot) because its trunk was full of rot. In my opinion it would make more sense to calculate which lots have the healthiest mix of eastern forest species undergoing normal forest succession, and ecological/site factors likely to permit long term continued development/succession (e.g., not being surrounded by high rises or whatnot) and prioritize those lots for permanent preservation. Not to say singular "landmark trees" above a certain size and age should be preserved. Feels a bit like someone traveled to the PNW or coastal California and has "big tree envy" LOL. Well, guess what? The PNW doesn't have derechos, hurricanes,tornadoes or microburst thunderstorms.

davidrt28, I totally agree that the preservation of lots/parcels having a healthy "mix of [native] forest species undergoing normal forest succession" should be prioritized, but I also think that the science does indeed support the claim that big trees (especially native trees on relatively undisturbed sites) provide significant environmental and ecological benefits that are often overlooked or undervalued. Planting a bunch of nursery grown landscape trees after the native soil has been removed and the natural site conditions permanently altered can't really compensate for the loss. I'd rather see 1 huge old white oak preserved (even though it may have some defects and a finite life span) by reconfiguring the development of the site, than to watch it be removed and "replaced" by one or more red maples, honeylocusts, callery pears, etc (IME often whatever the landscaper can find cheap locally).

My initial reaction was the absurdity of placing a dollar value on the tree cut down, but I suppose that’s all we’re left with once the deed has been done.