Editor:
Re: Renewed call to axe trees, April 23.
I would like to correct a statement attributed to me, regarding efforts to have trees removed alongside our building on Pacific Avenue.
At no time in my presentation to council did I say that the tree roots pose a tripping hazard; rather, my argument was that the roots constitute a significant threat to our infrastructure and to that of the city.
Also, the headline is somewhat misleading, given that our attempts to “axe” them have been ongoing since 2009! Prior to our second appearance before council on April 11, we had submitted two applications for tree removal and engaged in continual communications with city staff, none of which would have been necessary had the city not retracted – with no explanation – the permission to remove the trees that we had been granted after our first presentation!
While it is true that the rapidly growing roots have the potential to inflict considerable damage to the sidewalk, our driveway, sewer lines and so on, our more immediate concern is that the very presence of the view-eradicating trees represents a breach of trust and a violation of our entitlements as owners.
Many of our residents purchased their units, pre-construction, from the developer’s building plan, which indicated only low-growing shrubbery would be used in landscaping. They chose their suites for the views; paid a premium for them; and have continued to do so, in the form of higher taxes and strata fees, despite the fact that our units can no longer be deemed view properties and thus, have significantly depreciated in value.
That the city could have committed such a gross error in judgment as to plant honey locusts – capable of growing over 60 feet – in front of our view windows is beyond baffling.
Furthermore, the city’s reluctance to make amends, although admitting the trees are unsuitable for the site, suggests a disturbing lack of regard for our right to enjoy what we paid for and to protect our investment.
We had hoped this time around council would grant us the policy variance, in order to rectify our situation with some expedience.
However, they chose to make no decision, forcing us to submit yet another application for removal of the trees – a time-consuming process that could have been avoided, had our esteemed council seen fit to spend less time courting developers, and more to addressing legitimate grievances of their electorate.
Anne Torno, White Rock