Editor:
I differ with the opinion of Georgina Brandon (“Tree bylaw a winner,” Letters, March 26). She describes the bylaw as being “clear, logical and progressive” and pigeonholes resistance as owners wanting to protect their “investments.” Were that issues are so simple!
Reasonable owners are stewards of all greenery on their property, including trees and shrubs. On some properties, poorly spaced and inappropriately mixed species of saplings might have been planted historically. Now, to remove a tree or cut even a branch to keep clear of a hydro line to the house, an arborist opinion is required for the town to issue a permit. Similarly, undergrowth that includes wild seedlings over 50 cm in height is now protected as constituting “urban forest.”
The town currently has little capacity to even maintain the growth along most roadways, along which is greenery from scotch broom, wild maple, wild cherry, stick-thin to massive evergreens in various states of health, and decay is evident. Our pockmarked road has lots of boulevard tree root upheavals that continue to deteriorate the asphalt. No town maintenance is evident.
The tree bylaw, all 38 pages, becomes a massive regulatory make-work project needing extra staff on the payroll to monitor, and where property owners are held to a higher standard than the town itself. There are better town priorities.
The bylaw should focus more on new building permits, where aberrations to good tree stewardship are more likely to occur. The fundamental question is, for what purpose is the bylaw? If it is part of a global warming initiative to increase our carbon sink, the province continues to give out huge tree cutting licences around us. Yes, we must do what we can, but if so, let’s do something simpler like reducing greenhouse gases by prohibiting wood-burning fireplaces, instead of preventing my cutting off a branch or removing a 50 cm sapling. In a rural community, neither makes sense.
Rainer Borkenhage, Gibsons
