Re: Tree cuts stabilize, Aug. 12.
Finally, I see that someone on Surrey’s Environmental Sustainability Advisory Committee has become concerned about terribly irresponsible tree cutting in South Surrey.
I also found out while reading the article that the situation is even worse than I thought.
The City of Surrey issued 8,796 permits to cut down the trees since the year of 2013. Annual average, according to city planners, is 9,100.
This drop is due to the downturn in the economy. Now I am glad we had a downturn in the economy, otherwise we would have had a much higher figure in tree cutting.
Mayor Dianne Watts thinks the stabilization is due to implementation of the Tree Preservation Bylaw. I do not trust the mayor, and I am curious when city planners became aware of the existence of this bylaw? Just now? After so many beautiful mature trees have been cut down, having left us with congested living, heavy street traffic and a powerful overwhelming high-voltage electric line that now dominates even more over South Surrey?
Have you ever seen, in any civilized city, that residential subdivisions can be built around a high-voltage electrical line on a major scale? Their existence does not contribute to the beauty of South Surrey in the first place. Now that many mature tall trees have gone, those lines are even more dominant.
I am curious whether the city planners studied science at school. Looks like they have not because, if they did, they probably would know trees improve the quality of air by absorbing carbon and cars’ toxic exhaust fumes. Instead, they are rushing to issue construction and tree-cutting permits to developers.
And now we are aware of the results of this tedious job. Now we see how a used-to-be-best-place for living South Surrey area is turning into a congested residential place where it is becoming difficult to move around and breath.
The city and their developers must do a better job planning and have more trees to plant instead of cutting them down unnecessarily.
I am a grandmother of three grandchildren, and I am very happy that they live in London, England. They live in a great city where they have the largest number of trees grown per person in the world and they can spend quality time in numerous gorgeous civilized parks, at least three of them only a 15 minute-drive from their home.
Would they live on 156 Street in South Surrey, I would be worried where to take them to play and ride their colourful bikes. In our area, in the circle of several kilometres, there is only one small children’s playground.
I blame irresponsible city planners who do not do their job well and greedy developers who want to use every square inch of the land they purchased from the city.
Tash Kinsley, Surrey