Yes, and cities with lots of trees are way more livable due to this. Planners in our town seem to hate trees with a passion, thank god we‘re moving away from this concrete desert.

Trees in cities are expensive to maintain, which is why they're often on the chopping block when budgets get tight. This is especially true in places like Las Vegas where there is little natural tree cover due to the climate. You have to have a staff of arborists to keep the trees alive in such a harsh environment.

Indeed, the town I‘m living in was 80% destroyed during WWII and that still shows in its finances. It’s amazing how long major disaster affects a region. Big drug issues, highest cancer rate in the country etc

The problem is that to get these effects you need large canopies of trees, and to get that to happen the trees have to take the space of something else. For street trees it takes away land from parking or traffic lanes; for properties it occupies both horizontal and vertical square footage since the sky above the tree needs to be clear. These are unpopular with some political affiliations and interest groups.

Replacing inefficient street parking and wide roads with trees is a straightforward win.

It is like Sim City 1 where crossroads generated traffic, so you'd replace them with parks.

Obligatory response to 'Freedom Units' for those who haven't seen it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYqfVE-fykk