Your supervisors just approved paying developers to skip planting trees. Seriously?

Okay so, get this: Our Board of Supervisors just advanced a plan that could let developers pay their way out of planting trees. You heard that right. Instead of putting a tree where a tree should go, especially with all the new construction popping up from the Mission Bay high-rises to whatever they're building next in the Tenderloin, they could just cut a check. It also ends independent appeals for removing "hazardous" trees, which, you know, could be anything a developer decides is in the way.

What This Means for San Francisco

This is wild to me, fam. We're a city that prides itself on its green spaces, from Golden Gate Park stretching all the way to Ocean Beach, to the little pocket parks that are literally someone's backyard that they opened to the public. We're always talking about climate resilience, about making the City more livable, more beautiful. And now we're gonna let developers opt out of the most basic, fundamental part of that?

* **Greenwashing?** It feels like a way to look like you're doing something good, but really you're just paying a fee and moving on.

* **Neighborhood Impact:** Imagine your block, where the trees help shade those crazy hot days we're getting now, suddenly losing out because a developer decided money was easier than a sapling.

* **Bypassing Oversight:** Removing independent appeals for tree removal? That's a direct shot at community involvement.

I mean, the fog and hills are one thing, but trees actually clean our air and make walking around feel less like a concrete jungle. This isn't just about aesthetics; it's about the literal air we breathe and the quality of life in every neighborhood, from the Richmond District's tree-lined streets to the busy corridors around Market Street. That's the City, fam — fog, hills, and all.

Vivian Leung, MiTL Sports Desk, San Francisco.

My crew talks about this kind of stuff every morning — catch it live at mornings.live.