Editor:
Re: Policy has more bite than bark, May 20 letters.
The letter published outlines the enormous expense of removing a dangerous and nuisance tree on private property in White Rock.
The applicant was required to hire an arborist to confirm the tree was a danger/nuisance. The application fee was $500, although the tree-management bylaw clearly states a type 2 permit to remove a nuisance tree is $150. The applicant was required to plant five new trees four meters each in height on a really small lot on the hillside, and to pay $3,000 per tree to be held in trust.
The applicant is literally on probation for a year, and the question is what would happen to the bond if the trees did not survive. Anyone would be hesitant to deposit $15,000 without a written assurance the money would be returned.
The goal of this bylaw does not appear to satisfy any enforceable legal requirement and is in place to impose the expense of maintaining the urban tree canopy on unfortunate citizens who have trees that become a danger and a nuisance. The bylaw would be justified if a tree was removed that adversely impacted soil stability or if removed near an open watercourse.
This bylaw shows no recognition of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It can only be described as “oppressive” and would no doubt be struck down if challenged in court.
To arbitrarily require a citizen to plant five large trees in place of one tree – on a small lot – and then impose a $15,000 deposit, subject to inspection of the trees after one year, is not due process of law.
It is time the implications of the tree-management bylaw were addressed to determine if the city has the jurisdiction to enforce unfair sanctions on citizens with respect to their trees on their property, unless civil or criminal liability is involved
Bill Parrott, Surrey
• • •
Beginning with the premise that all problems are potentially our teachers, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the cherry tree and raccoons in the letter writer’s yard are trying to teach her something, namely that they were there long before you arrived and, God willing, will be there long after you are gone.
This being so, it might be worthwhile to learn that while raccoons are in part cherry eaters, they are not children eaters. Instead of fearing them, she might strive to learn how to live with them more wisely, humanely and harmoniously. For example, don’t leave food outside; tie garbage bins down; give them a wide but appreciative berth, especially if they do you honour of bringing their children with them; above all else, don’t ‘freak out’ when you see them. Instead, teach children the nature and wonder of them.
Now for the cherry tree. Did you know that James Thurber once sat by his window watching men cut down cherry trees to build an institution in which to contain people who were driven crazy by the cutting down of cherry trees?
The cutting down of cherry trees and the unwarranted, fear-inspired response to raccoons are among the many reasons I haven’t seen for years a swallow, or a frog, or a beaver, or a fox. Where are they now? Gone. Scattered in this terrible dispersal. But at least the raccoons that so many people so revile and fear and castigate still traverse my yard.
If there is hope for wildlife in particular and our planet in general, we might in our hearts welcome these little citizens, little survivors as a template for the future well-being of all of us.
We ask only that they lend us their presence, and we will simply and gratefully lend them ours.
Perry Walker, Surrey