Editor:
Re: I love trees but I want my view, April 20 letters.
Bravo to letter-writer Linda Carvajal’s comments.
Since our marriage 30 years ago, we dreamed of owning a home in White Rock with an ocean view. Ten years ago, after the kids moved on, we sold our home in Surrey. In September 2003, our dream came true when we purchased a condo with a beautiful ocean view, and I must say we paid a premium price for this.
Now, due to the growth of trees in our neighbourhood, we are losing our once-lifetime dream.
Don’t get me wrong. I love trees, too. But there is a place for them. What would be wrong with a bylaw that restricts trees to no more then building height.
We implore council to do something to save our views, so we may once again be able to live our dream.
Randy & Janet Henley, White Rock
• • •
To Linda Carvajal who wants her view: when we moved to White Rock in 1952, we could look up from the beach without seeing all those ugly homes on the hill.
We never had any problems with landslides due to erosion on the hillsides. We could go pick wild blackberries and salmonberries and pick fruit in the summertime. We could see deer and other wild animals in White Rock, because there were trees.
The view I would like to see is that they bulldoze everything down within a mile of the beachfront and return it back to nature. I have a very strong feeling that if your house slides down the hill due to heavy rains and erosion, you won’t be worrying about your view.
Dan Ashby, White Rock
• • •
White Rock is branded as a seaside community with breathtaking ocean views. The official city website informs us of steadily increasing property values due to White Rock’s attractive setting and amenities.
No property value is increased by tree-obstructed views. Many of the evergreens, planted long ago, have been left to grow unmanaged to quite substantial heights. Those trees belong in a forest.
To my knowledge, the city employs an arbourist who would know which types of species are suitable to plant within city limits and how to shape them attractively.
Barbara Notheis, White Rock
• • •
Re: Few move here to look at trees, April 22 letters.
I would like to add my support to the statements expressed by letter-writers John and Patricia Samson.
This area is indeed known for, and sought after, because of its stunning views. It is for this reason land values are high, and thus exorbitant taxes can be levied.
The City of White Rock owns an amazing amount of property, in the form of easements, laneways, etc. Although they make some effort to contain the grasses, they rarely address the issue of overgrown trees, hedges and bushes. It is their responsibility to ensure excessive growth does not become a detriment to taxpayers’ views, and it is in no way justifiable to expect payment of $10,000-$15,000 to make up for their lack of diligence.
I suggest those who so defiantly defend these trees aren’t looking at them through their beach and water views.
Susan C. Mueller, White Rock
• • •
Have the tree-cutting proponents lost their minds? Why don’t we just cut down all those trees so everyone can then have views that consist only of other houses?
Trees do much more than “block views.” They clean the air pollution coming from Vancouver and provide nesting for birds. Have you noticed how aromatic the air is in White Rock compared to Vancouver?
Homeowners who want trees removed to provide views bought their properties knowing there were trees or the possibility of tree growth. Perhaps this is all about improving the resale values of their properties?
If those near the beach want a view, why not burn calories and walk to the beach where the view is breathtaking? Oh, I forgot. That view is free for everyone.
B. Cunningham, White Rock
• • •
Yes, this is an ocean-view city, not a tree-view city. The city should be required to prune trees, as property owners request, in an attempt to continue a view that has been disrupted by the growth of a tree or a hedge.
I would like to see the bylaw include pruning of trees on private property. Owners allow trees to grow out of proportion where it doesn’t affect their views. They don’t consider the inconvenience of others higher up the slope. Such owners should be required, upon request, to trim trees sufficiently to replace the original view.
Gerry Houlden, Surrey
