The property next to mine has been zoned allowing it to be subdivided for many years.
The property is a half-acre and has a very well-maintained home, massive working garage and beautiful mature trees.
With lots of ‘teardowns’ all over Surrey with blue tarp on the roofs, plus lots of virgin land that may be considered ‘good development,’ I think it’s a shame the City of Surrey will allow this nice home to come down so developers can make money.
That is ‘bad development,’ plus terrible for the environment and does nothing to improve the neighbourhood.
I attended the city council meeting June 12 and almost everyone in the neighbourhood was against this development, but it still was approved.
Did the mayor and council even see a picture of the home/property they were condemning to the dump? No, just an impersonal showing of the layout of the land. How can they make a decision when they don’t know – or care – if it’s a ‘teardown’ or nice home?
We tried to say it’s a beautiful home in a great neighbourhood with large mature trees, but few on council were listening.
I am not against development, and if the home next door was a ‘teardown shack’ I would say “good riddance.” Our council has to better distinguish between good and bad development, and perhaps look at a real picture of the home to better understand what they are voting for/against as they remake Surrey.
Would our mayor like it if the property next to hers was torn down and three small homes put on the lot? Probably not, but it’s OK this is happening to others so they can say: “Development in Surrey is up during the last four years. We have done a great job of moving Surrey forward and keeping your taxes down.”
Bruce Loeppky, Surrey