If a tree falls in an infill property, does it sound the same as the one that falls in the next door neighbour’s yard?
If a tree falls in an infill property, does it sound the same as the one that falls in the next door neighbour’s yard? Judging from a recent survey of Calgarians, apparently not...
Certainly we can all agree that trees make our physical environment more enjoyable, not to mention healthier. Many Calgarians are lucky enough to enjoy the benefits of trees in their own backyards all year round. If we can all agree on the benefits of trees, why is a preservation bylaw a bad idea?
While there are a variety of concerns regarding the City of Calgary’s report coming to SPC on Community and Protective Services on February 8th, the biggest one for the residential construction industry should be fairness and equity. The Executive Summary attached to Wednesday’s report is very telling on this point.
In the key findings it is noted that 53% of Calgarians agreed that land owners should be able to remove mature healthy trees without permission of the City. And a further 25% somewhat agreed. This brings us to the central question in any private tree bylaw debate. If a homeowner decides to take down a tree or two to foster greater enjoyment of their property, should the City be able to weigh in on that decision, perhaps requiring costly third party reports or levying a charge for a removal permit? It seems the majority of Calgarians surveyed would say ‘no’.
But here’s where it gets interesting. Judging from these survey results, there is a distinct lack of understanding of the word ‘land owner’ and who it might apply to as evidenced by the following statement in the report; “Calgarians express strong support, on the other hand, for the implementation and monitoring of regulations for developers and infill developments”.
Apparently it is ok for the owner at 123 Cherry Tree Lane who just moved in two years ago and is doing some landscaping, to take down a few mature trees without paying a dime to the City. But what about the fellow who owns 125 Cherry Tree Lane and intends to take down some trees in order to prepare the site for redevelopment? Judging by the above statement, he should pay dearly for the privilege.
It seems that taking down trees for any personal reasons (more sunlight, less maintenance hassles, more grass, better place for the trampoline, etc) is perfectly acceptable, while removing trees to facilitate redevelopment is clearly not. That’s making a distinct value judgment in the application of the rules and a slippery slope to be sure. Why is one neighbour’s reason more valid than the other’s? Who decides?
Private trees are just that, privately owned and subject to the care and attention of their owners. If the City wants to operate in a fair and equitable manner, then any rules being contemplated must either apply to all owners, regardless of present or future intentions, or be abandoned completely.
Click to share thisClick to share this
It wouldn’t be such a problem if the people removing trees to facilitate redevelopment:
1) removed as few trees as possible, and took reasonable steps to preserve and protect the rest; and
2) provided for an appropriate number and size of new trees to be planted to replace those that had to be removed.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1