Editor:
Re: A lone voice on the wilderness, Oct. 24 letters.
I agree with Sybil Rowe’s letter.
I am constantly astounded to see the clear cutting of every new development. Replacing the trees doesn’t replace the beautiful “second growth” of native trees that we are used to enjoying.
Sybil’s example of the Grandview Heights pool is a good one. The developers should be made to develop the land and vegetation without altering all of it.
City hall should demand better planning.
Lois Smith, Surrey
• • •
I am absolutely appalled to see what the city has done at this building site. They have clear cut what looks to be five acres of land. Anything green is gone.
Was it not possible to work around any of the bigger trees that used to stand in this area?
How is it that Surrey bylaws require a homeowner to obtain an arbourist report and permit to cut down one tree in a backyard, but the City of Surrey itself cuts trees and strips acres at a time?
What happened to the doctrine that has been taught to my kids, by the Surrey School Board, that trees are the planet’s lungs and should therefore be respected as our own? How, after pursuing private developers for indiscriminate tree cutting, can the city possibly justify what they have done?
The pool site is just the beginning of a huge project that includes playing fields and a high school, on perhaps 50 or more acres of heavily treed land. I hope the city intends a far more sensitive approach when developing those next phases, because when I look at what they have done so far, I see no regard for the environment or any consideration for nearby residents.
I am disgusted!
Richard Gardiner, Surrey