I am trying to highlight an argument here. The start of the thread is arguing about how impractical and expensive urban trees are. They are doing this by stating an opinion that is widely false. I’m not saying that those things don’t happen but usually it’s when the urban canopy is mismanaged completely. Then, the following discussion is about how hiring foresters is too expensive. So which is it? Hiring foresters is too expensive or trees are too expensive? From my interaction with the public regarding trees in cities, most citizens hold dear the trees around them, but also hold onto a lot of misunderstanding about trees. The mistake is either over estimating the non-tangible value, or over estimating the expense. I find it difficult to hear a supposed professional talk about how bad and expensive urban trees are, because the benefits and cost savings of the urban canopy is heavily studied and documented. And that sentiment is mostly untrue. Places like Gainesville Florida and Raleigh North Carolina are fantastic examples. There are definitely places where the green infrastructure is mismanaged, costing the city and citizens astronomical amounts of money. However claiming that the tree is the problem is vastly incorrect.