Native macrophytes were transplanted into a small urban stream as part of a rehabilitation program, that also meandered the previously channeled stream, naturalized stream banks, and planted native riparian vegetation. Transplanted macrophytes minimized spread of introduced macrophytes and were viewed beneficially by residents, as was the stream rehabilitation. We transplanted the native macrophyte Myriophyllum triphyllum into five larger streams dominated by exotic macrophytes—some of which were weeded prior to transplanting—to see whether Myriophyllum could prevent regrowth of weeded plants. Transplanted Myriophyllum plants were washed away in two streams, reflecting high shear stresses there. Myriophyllum cover in the other streams decreased as weeded plants regrew. Our attempt at eliminating exotic macrophytes in patches in large streams was unsuccessful. Furthermore, council authorities weeded other experimental sections following complaints from residents of excess macrophyte growth. This problem highlighted conflicting multiple values placed on urban streams by managers and the public. A repeat survey of residents living near the original rehabilitated stream showed that many respondents were now critical of excessive plant growth—both in‐stream and riparian. A recurring comment made concerned the apparent lack of maintenance to the stream, giving it an untidy appearance. Difficulties with propagating and transplanting native macrophytes into larger streams, coupled with a negative perception of native vegetation (both in‐stream and riparian) if it looks unmanaged, suggest that planting macrophytes or riparian plants as part of urban stream rehabilitation programs may be more problematic than realized.