Strange that they wouldn’t just build the housing around it. Cutting down trees lowers property value.
This isn’t so much a Seattle proper thing, but I’ve never understood why all the housing developments in the suburbs clear all the trees on the lots before building houses. From what I understand, it’s cheaper and quicker to build on cleared land and the builders can sell the timber, but I’d think that people would be willing to pay more for a house in a nice wooded area that distracts from how disgusting these neighborhoods are with houses that all look the same 5ft apart from one another.
They didn’t want it to become housing so they started living in it. Interesting approach.
They want the housing to be built around it and the tree preserved. A perfectly reasonable compromise at a time when we need both more housing and more green space/canopy cover.
And anyway, having that tree there will increase those property values.
