The city tree bylaw needs some common sense applied.
Asking a homeowner to plant multiple trees to replace an old and diseased tree is absurd.
The hillside lots in White Rock are small and cannot support the healthy growth of many trees. Better that the city have fewer healthy plants and trees rather than plant much greenery that is not cared for!
A cherry tree that has grown to excess height and is diseased does nothing to enhance the neighbourhood and is of no benefit – except to crows, raccoons, rats and other vermin who feed on the rotting fruit. Look around, I believe we have enough problems with rats that carry various disease.
To the letter-writer who proposes that we learn to live with raccoons, I suggest this would not be healthy for young children who might accidentally disturb a raccoon that can be quite vicious if it were protecting its food or babies. I would not want to be responsible for a young child or adult for that matter, being attacked.
Are we supposed to lock the children inside? Or watch them every minute? Has that person ever had raccoons or squirrels in his attic?
To council, please revisit the tree bylaw and apply common sense to planting trees on small lots. This should be based on the area available to support the plants and allow the homeowner some yard to enjoy.
Ken Linklater, White Rock
• • •
After reading Perry Walker’s “koombaya” letter to the editor, I have to wonder. If one lives in a forested area, I agree to be one with nature. Live and let live.
But consider the damage these creatures do to a residential yard. Even their deposits are extremely toxic, let alone if pets and children are around. They chew up shingles. They tear anything up and eat anything they see.
I and my neighbours have spent hundreds of dollars fixing up their destruction. Ommmm!
As far as this cash grab for an arborist to assess something that is obvious – and charge the customer for it, when it’s the City of White Rock that ordered it – is ridiculous. And to demand that five trees be replanted to replace the rotten and hazardous one is another cash grab and I question the legality of such a demand.
The citizen is trying to make her property – her little piece of heaven – safe, but instead is met by roadblocks because she decided to go the permit route, not to mention the outrageous deposit she is requested to make for the new trees. What is city hall doing to their citizens besides causing anguish and conflict?
I’m on the other side of the fence. I had a hazardous tree and three others of the same kind. The City of Surrey sent out their guy; that cost me nothing. Gave me a permit; that cost me nothing. I hired a tree-removal company and took down all the trees to avoid future problems, which the city was OK with, and I was never ordered to replant or had to put any money on hold for a year.
I feel the original letter writer is being bullied and not respected for her conscientious action.
Patricia Seggie, Surrey