You can identify poor neighborhoods from space

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Tim De Chant at Per Square Mile has noted that rich urban areas have way, way more trees than poor areas in the same city. In fact, the difference is so stark that income inequality can be seen from space. The satellite images above are low-income West Oakland and high-income Piedmont, and I probably don't have to tell you which is which.

De Chant has collected images from four U.S. cities and two international cities, and in every one, the wealthier areas are conspicuously more leafy. Since trees increase property values, this is a classic case of the rich being given whatever they need to get richer. And considering the other things trees do for us, it's also a case of the rich getting to be smarter, cooler, and have fewer allergies.

Source

• Income Inequality, As Seen From Space, Per Square Mile

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Tim De Chant at Per Square Mile has noted that rich urban areas have way, way more trees than poor areas in the same city. In fact, the difference is so stark that income inequality can be seen from space. The satellite images above are low-income West Oakland and high-income Piedmont, and I probably don't have to tell you which is which.

De Chant has collected images from four U.S. cities and two international cities, and in every one, the wealthier areas are conspicuously more leafy. Since trees increase property values, this is a classic case of the rich being given whatever they need to get richer. And considering the other things trees do for us, it's also a case of the rich getting to be smarter, cooler, and have fewer allergies.

Source

• Income Inequality, As Seen From Space, Per Square Mile

you have got to be effing kidding me Steven.

Cmon, how do you post this ####### sometimes?

So I live in a nice area with trees and things are just "given" ?????

You're so full of #######.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Actually, Steve is hitting the mark on this one.

Check out this image:

[Pooky 3,347]

Or maybe people with enough money buy property with more trees, at higher prices, and thus contribute more to their local economies.

Because if trees are a sign of an area's relative wealth, I want to move to Maine - only enough people for a single statewide phone code, but trees stretching unbroken for mile upon mile in the North, town or no town

[jaycali 415]

you have got to be effing kidding me Steven.Cmon, how do you post this ####### sometimes?So I live in a nice area with trees and things are just "given" ?????You're so full of #######.

I wouldn't call it #######. More of an observation. Statistics don't lie, but at the same time shouldn't be expected to give a precise answer. All he really posted was an observation that neighborhoods with plenty of trees are usually richer than neighborhoods in the same area with fewer tees. It doesn't mean all people with trees in their front yards are rich.

[Danno 1,228]

I wouldn't call it #######. More of an observation. Statistics don't lie, but at the same time shouldn't be expected to give a precise answer. All he really posted was an observation that neighborhoods with plenty of trees are usually richer than neighborhoods in the same area with fewer tees. It doesn't mean all people with trees in their front yards are rich.

No, it's the class warfare shtick.

" Since trees increase property values, this is a classic case of the rich being given whatever they need to get richer. And considering the other things trees do for us, it's also a case of the rich getting to be smarter, cooler, and have fewer allergies.

"

First of all the closer houses are to each other the less vegetation there will be.

Compare the rich area presented in the pick to some yahooville place a little farther out and you will see even more vegetation as the lot size increases though the incomes are considerably lower.

One could also make the case that poor people tend to rent and don't invest in trees and shrubbery where as the home owners typically will.

Nothing here but BS... and class warfare.

Anyway whats wrong with people who carry the load of the tax base (pulling the weight for the poor) getting a few trees. (though most look like they are on Private land.

Edited May 27, 2012 by Danno

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

FYI I think the photos are focusing on street trees - ie in the public domain.

[mawilson 2,133]

If you can identify poor neighborhoods from space, that's where they belong. The solution is clear - send the poor to outer space!

[james&olya 1,121]

Probably multiple reasons for the disparity but the most obvious would be basic land values. If you are wealthy you can afford more land and thus more trees. Higher density housing, especially on a limited budget, offers little chance for large greenbelts. The thing that often surprises me is how much greenery does survive in very low-income neighborhoods. I think everyone appreciates it. Not everyone can afford it.

[MyLittlePony 340]

So much fun to poke at poor people some have too much free time.

Edited May 27, 2012 by *++*

[one...two...tree 2,762]

FYI I think the photos are focusing on street trees - ie in the public domain.

Exactly. The same holds true for public schools in wealthier neighborhoods.

[jaycali 415]

No, it's the class warfare shtick.

" Since trees increase property values, this is a classic case of the rich being given whatever they need to get richer. And considering the other things trees do for us, it's also a case of the rich getting to be smarter, cooler, and have fewer allergies.

"

First of all the closer houses are to each other the less vegetation there will be.

Compare the rich area presented in the pick to some yahooville place a little farther out and you will see even more vegetation as the lot size increases though the incomes are considerably lower.

One could also make the case that poor people tend to rent and don't invest in trees and shrubbery where as the home owners typically will.

Nothing here but BS... and class warfare.

Anyway whats wrong with people who carry the load of the tax base (pulling the weight for the poor) getting a few trees. (though most look like they are on Private land.

I have no problem with that. And if it makes rich people healthier because they have trees then that's how it is.

I'm saying that if you've dedicated your life to find out why rich people are i.e. healthier, then this would be an interesting statistic to look at.

If it was somehow concluded that rich people don't get asthma (example) because they live in greener areas, then knowing that is valuable information. Whether tax dollars should then be spent on more trees in poorer neighborhoods is where it becomes political.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If it was somehow concluded that rich people don't get asthma (example) because they live in greener areas, then knowing that is valuable information.

Do they plant hypoallergenic trees? I know I breath better in the desert, than I do in mold filled forests, or pollen filled grasslands.

[jaycali 415]

Do they plant hypoallergenic trees? I know I breath better in the desert, than I do in mold filled forests, or pollen filled grasslands.

I wonder. Lol.

Hence:

asthma (example)

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Do they plant hypoallergenic trees? I know I breath better in the desert, than I do in mold filled forests, or pollen filled grasslands.

Allergies will grow on you, newcomers to the desert eventually discover

Pity the Arizona newcomers who rejoice when they think they've left their allergies behind in their former home state.

"They may be better off for the first couple of years they're here," says Phoenix osteopathic physician Art Mollen. "Then their immune system starts to change and they develop allergies to the trees and shrubs of Arizona."

Allergies are hard to escape, he says, and one out of every five people suffers from them.

Question: What causes allergies?

Answer: People think it's a matter of the immune system not functioning, but it's actually overreacting. The immune system goes into a state of hyperactivity and responds to pollens by releasing histamine, which is the chemical that causes all the symptoms.

....

Q: How can people figure out which things trigger their allergies so they can avoid them when possible?

A: Allergy testing places drops of various pollens on your skin to determine what you're allergic to, then a serum is tailored for you and given in allergy shots. In the beginning, the shots are given about twice a week for several weeks until you develop antibodies that prevent you from having allergy symptoms.

As a former chief of allergy and immunizations at Luke Air Force Base, I can tell you that the shots work in about 50 percent of people. It's a lot of effort, but for some people, they are extremely efficacious. It can take about three months to start seeing results.

Q: Can anything be done to prevent allergies?

A: Allergies are influenced by heredity, but reactions can be minimized. The No. 1 preventive measure is to keep car and house windows closed, with the air-conditioning on as needed. These steps alone can reduce allergy symptoms by 50 percent.

Putting a little bit of Vaseline inside the nose can keep you from breathing in pollens. Also, using cases on pillows and mattresses will cut down on allergies caused by dust mites. Washing linens with a few drops of eucalyptus oil in laundry water will remove 100 percent of dust mites, as opposed to laundry detergent, which removes only about 2 1/2 percent.

http://www.azcentral.com/health/news/articles/0502qamollen0502.html