Weird, considering trees are usually provided by the local authority, but apparently true.
Do affluent people care more about trees? understand the health effects better? pester the council more?
All of the above?
I often hear the arguments that issues such as crime, overcrowding, joblessness and its resulting poverty take precedent over planting and maintaining trees. However, according to the studies I keep reading about this issue this is a false argument because THEY'RE ALL RELATED!
In the grand scheme of things, planting and maintaining trees and encouraging residents to have plants in their gardens instead of concrete is much less expensive than the costs of tackling the causes of crime, poverty and inadequate housing. It's not an either-or situation.
It's simple. Muswell Hill pays more council tax so they get more trees.
Yeah, I'm not sure about that either, unless a high percentage of residents don't pay any council tax. I don't know how that works.
I'm thinking that the main factor is a difference of expectation and a more unified outlook among neighbours about street trees. In an area where some residents can't be bothered or don't like nature, it's much easier for the council to use that apathy to its advantage and leave an area barren.