Hola from Paraguay,
What are the arguments against having fruit trees in the footpaths of our cities?
Do we think they bring insects? Do we worry about falling fruit? Do we believe the maintenance is greater than for other trees? Or, is there a commercial reason? Perhaps it is thought that they somehow encourage homelessness (?).
The Paraguayans don’t seem to worry about any of these matters. In the streets of urban settlements throughout Paraguay, different fruit trees grow happily in among the cityscapes. Their urban settlements are lined with countless fruit-bearing trees. These are mainly oranges, lemons and pomelos, but also alverja, papayas and even mangoes. Many of these trees produce free fruit for residents (exactly the point) but they don’t seem to increase the incidence of rotting fruit on the pavement. They don’t seem to increase homelessness. Other cities in other countries have a much greater incidence of homelessness.
The answer is more likely found in the political clout exercised by purveyors of fruit and vegetables, keen to maintain their market share by not having any of their profitable lines freely available in the streets. That argument holds no water here in Paraguay because most of these productive trees were planted many years ago.
Bill Mollison, father of Permaculture, suggested that we plant our city streets with fruit-bearing and nut-bearing trees. His idea was that the bounty could be shared amongst the people who own the resource, thereby reducing our need to resort to the distorted markets for our food. The idea has never caught on, except here in Paraguay. Paraguay seems to have got in before such self-interested activists could interfere.
Adios from Paraguay
Gregorio
