Six more reasons for a tree bylaw

I noticed this on the way home today:
436 7th Street. Six mature pine trees gone.
Perhaps they needed to go. The stumps sure look healthy, but I;m not an arborist. Maybe they were diseased or had been topped to death. Maybe they will be replaced with young trees better suited to whatever the property manager is looking for. Let’s hope so, because trees have a value in a mature community like ours, and I would hate to think they just knocked them down because they didn’t like sweeping up pine needles, or because they were a perceived “security issue”. As we wait for a tree bylaw to get organized, we will lose more of these.

2 comments on “Six more reasons for a tree bylaw

  1. Hello – I live on 7th street & was shocked to see the trees cut down. I spoke to a resident of that building and he said they need to do foundation work and the trees were in the way.
    It’s too bad they couldn’t find a way to do it and save the trees.

  2. Yes, it is too bad. And the story may be true, but in a jurisdiction with a tree bylaw, they would have to demonstrate the need to remove the trees to facilitate the repairs. As it is, anyone can say “they are going to break my foundation” and take them out (although the risks to foundationscaused by trees are exaggerated).

    Assuming they DID need to remove them, and could demonstrate that, they would be required to replace the trees, possbily at a 2-for-1 ratio.

    I know I’ll be asking about the tree byalw at the civic election this year.

Leave a Reply