Editor:
Re: Our cities need to protect trees, Dec. 9 letters.
Concerned citizens for the protection of tree canopy would do well to keep their concerns firmly focused on forested lands in their absolute natural state. These forested lands are yours, mine and our collective asset.
That being said, your neighbour’s stand of trees, those on private land, are not. Private citizens living on their own little residential lots should not be expected to, let alone forced to by law, make up for trees that have been lost as a result of development or from municipalities that continue to sell off their forested public lands for profit.
Their mistakes, their greed – or maybe just their lack of knowledge and foresight – are of grave concern. But I can’t make up for it, nor can you.
Tree bylaws, as with many other bylaws, are often put in place more for the fees and fines they generate, not to mention their knack at deflection, an ever-so-popular tactic in politics. Keep the shortsighted masses arguing amongst themselves over who’s to blame, while those truly responsible sail right on through the sea of controversy unscathed. A game of ‘switch and bait.’
Having read the deluge of letters in Peace Arch News, the thinking behind some comments seem misdirected. Clearly, people with genuine concerns can still have trouble seeing the forest through the trees.
Regarding the letter on White Rock’s tree preservation, here’s the sad truth: With the amount of development on the hillside, there is no place for tall trees. None. Those few that remain are likely far more a hazard than an asset. From early photos, it appears much of the hillside trees were deciduous alders and cottonwood punctuated by the odd conifer grove. Grove. Together, en masse. Not as stand-alone sentinels perched precariously on the hillside, left to support someone’s fancy of preservation.
A second letter, from someone wise and well-versed in local politics, comes across a tad naive. Attempts at entrepreneurial use of residential lands are mostly discouraged by the City of Surrey. Not everyone can keep their big lots intact. Even if they wanted to.
A third letter just about lost me with tie-ins to climate change, then on to farming. That’s another discussion.
The letter-writer’s abhorrence to the industrial complex on 32 Avenue and 192 street is trash talk. It’s actually a good thing. Welcoming light industry to your neighbourhood is essential to the whole concept of sustainable communities. Where people are fortunate to live and work within reasonable distances. You can’t fancy yourself an environmentalist without addressing how hard commuting is on the environment.
Last but not least, the fourth letter was chosen for your ‘quote of note’: “It is hard to believe someone would allow this, just for a lawn.”
A lawn, eh? How horrid. Lol. So your neighbour down the road was pining for a little slice of sunshine and some grass? Maybe they have young children to play on that lawn. Maybe they’re retired, might even try their hand at veggie gardening. Maybe not. Who knows?
Your neighbour may want a life different from yours.
After these recent wind storms, did you help a heavily treed neighbour with debris cleanup? Maybe help clear their eaves for them? No, you didn’t. The trees are theirs when it comes down to all the nuisance associated with them, and only yours – collectively – when you see fit.
My sympathies lie with the bylaws and planning departments, who must have to listen to hysterics and exaggerations all day long.
What may not yet be clear to some readers is that I, too, am a tree lover. A lover, not a hugger. And certainly not an armchair tree-hugger. I am actively passionate about trees. In my youth I could identify any tree, even a deciduous tree in its winter form, at 100 yards. Now, I try hard to think with my head than solely my heart.
Patricia Tyler, Surrey
