Development dilemmas

Editor:

I am in the process of addressing Surrey city hall, regarding the new fashion of building monster houses in South Surrey.

Editor:

I am in the process of addressing Surrey city hall, regarding the new fashion of building monster houses in South Surrey.

Lately, I’ve been observing that every time a small house is sold, it gets demolished and people come in and start building huge edifices the like of which Surrey is blighted with all over.

They take over the entire property, with barely any room left for a lawn, never mind some bushes or flowers. These houses do not fit into the neighbourhood, which consists of beautiful three bedroom houses, leaving plenty of room for fauna.

In White Rock proper, they built two houses on a property which formerly consisted of one house, and these look beautiful and are big enough for any family.

I’d like to know who approves these monster houses and why.

We always joked that living in South Surrey meant never having to say one lived in Surrey, but with this trend we eventually will fit right in.

Let’s stop this before it is too late.

Edie Williams, Surrey

• • •

Re: Outrage over extensive clearcutting, Sept. 13.

It is absolutely disgusting that another developer has ignored the bylaws and laws of our municipality and city by clearcutting. What is more disgusting is the monetary slap-on-the-wrist penalties.

These trees are part of our heritage. Some of these trees have lived on the planet longer than us. The developer pays the penalty, which is cheaper than the selective cutting that was allowed on the permit.

However the root of the problem goes deeper than this clearcutting in Surrey by a developer.

Has anyone driven through the development near the border? Most streets are very narrow and the houses so close together you would could open your side window and shake hands with your neighbour.

These are only examples of what has transpired in Surrey over the last number of years, starting from the monster homes allowed in quiet residential neighbourhoods.

No wonder many families are leaving Surrey because of the high-density housing, row homes and less greens space in the city’s core.

The mayor and the city planning department are bending backwards to accommodate developers so that Surrey can become the largest city in B.C. I am not saying all developers are guilty of abuse of the laws, as there are many reputable ones out there, but the ones who do not conform to the agreement must be subject to loss of their licence in Surrey for a specified time period.

This is the only detriment that will stop this abuse.

The city must also overhaul its planning department and land-use laws to ensure that our children and grandchildren live in a green city and not a ghetto.

Jim Enos, Surrey