I am not against new construction, but save the trees, for goodness sake. I live in a teardown neighborhood ITB. The builders/developers are leveling the older homes along with every living thing on the lot. This includes the stately older oaks and the umbrella of pines that are the reason these neighborhoods are so desirable -- not to mention the protection they give from the sun and habitat for the birds and small animals.

We are at war over oil, and this behavior seems just incredibly irresponsible to me. There are many days when I can have my doors and windows open and sit on my porch getting a nice breeze when I look over to my neighbors in "the big houses" and see them all shut up with the A/C roaring. Yes, they do put trees back, but even when the trees they plant reach a mature height, they will not even reach the eave lines of some of these houses. What are we thinking?

There should be guidelines put into place restricting the ability to take down trees and then requiring a percentage of the lot to remain in yard area. That would reduce the size of the allowable building area and keep the new homes in a reasonable range.

Ariana Bennett

Raleigh

Policy and market duel in neighborhoods

People are so into protecting their rights sometimes, they cannot see straight. Not everyone who gets a super-sized house next door will shout with joy ... hooray, I can cash out now.

People who buy into a neighborhood know what they are buying into. People who live in that neighborhood do not know what is coming. I repeat, this is not a battle of rights, this is a battle of where the line needs to be between policy and market. The market is not inclined to show respect for all things that are valuable until too late.

Carol F. Majors

Raleigh

Teardowns clear path to the future

I welcome a large home with a nice manicured lawn over the crumbling old house with the lawn that is mowed once a month -- if we're lucky. There are new young families moving in and breathing new life into our little neck of the woods -- their arrival is well worth the year or so of construction hassles. This is all great for the overall quality of life here on the street and fabulous for our property values. I appreciate knowing that when I'm ready, I can either sell, expand (if possible), or tear my home down and start over. I would love to have the opportunity to stay here, and we will eventually outgrow the old structure we're in.

Keep in mind that it's not just builders/investors that are doing this, but our neighbors are, too. They made the decision to reinvest in their current investment and stay in this lovely area -- and there are others of us who would like to have that option in the future.

Kristin Bear

Raleigh

'Smart growth' is anything but

One of the prized ideas of smart growth is the concept of "infill." In reality, infill means only one thing: more and more on less and less land. This includes both people and housing. Why should we be surprised at teardowns when that is what modern planning is all about, once you get behind the double talk? Citizens are all for "smart growth" without knowledge of how it works. If smart growth-oriented new developments put $1 million houses on lots so small that there are almost no lawns to mow, why should we be surprised if the rules encourage a similar outcome for infill? Planning has never thought the middle class should have a house anyway. We were supposed to live in apartments.

George Conklin

Durham

Are demolitions even safe?

Next page >