Trio plead guilty to damaging trees
Three people are scheduled to be sentenced on Thursday in Richmond provincial court after pleading guilty to 26 counts under the city’s tree protection bylaw.
Amandeep K. Dhillon, Paramjit S. Pandher and Karpal Singh were accused of preparing a site for rezoning, and damaging 27 trees before the site assessment process had been completed.
A property at 22391 Westminster Hwy. was eyed for a residential development, and at one point, protection had been put in place for the trees on the property.
But those barriers were removed at some point, and the three men, linked to a B.C. numbered company (0740769 BC Ltd.) went ahead with preparing the site and in doing so damaged a variety of species of trees.
It may(or may not) surprise you, but I am on the side of the accused
IMHO, when you buy a piece of property, you have BOTH an authority and a responsibility.
You should have the sole right to determine what you wish to keep and remove once you attain ownership.
I love nature….trees etc…….but if one wishes to KEEP trees, then buy the property and keep them.
(1) My spouses friend and her husband had a single family house in North Surrey. In their back yard was a few large cedars ie 2-3 ft. in diameter. One evening, when a major windstorm came up….one of the cedars trees fell over and literally cut their house in half, which required a major restoration. Then it happened AGAIN with another tree(was actually on the evening news).
(2) While at an in-laws condo for dinner in Coquitlam, we were about to leave….and out of the blue this loud boom and crash noise shook the unit.. When we investigated, (2) large Fir trees had been blown over by a windstorm, and smashed the windows and punched in the wall.
(3) Another family member bought a lot and built a house in South Surrey. The City had left a small park full of tree in the middle of an oval shaped subdivision. BAADDD. What many do not realize is when you cut down trees in a large acreage, the remaining tress cannot handle the stress of winds. Prior to this, the “forest” units ie trees would each absorb the wind force, and dilute it. These tree were not used to handling the wind and many of them fell over, luckily, no houses yet existed where they fell.
The above parties are deemed as to have broken a City Bylaw…but that does not even remotely imply the Bylaw was correct in the first place. What will happen is that they will be charged in what I consider a Gov’t bodies amazing ability to convert a concern by a few ignorant tree-hugging citizens into an empire- building gravy train at City Hall.
The City will ” fine them”…..generate revenue(piss that down a rathole)……and then insist that replacement trees be planted..blah blah blah….create another job for another bureaucrat…..becomes theatre of the absurd.
I see many trees in situations that look very dubious….aka “man ….if that tall old tree fell over, someone could get killed”. No tree lives forever. If various organisms or old age do not kill the trees…Wind will. A standing tree has a lot of weight and hence potential energy…and ultimately every tree will move from vertical to horizontal one way or the other,…….that is a given.
The City should stay the hell out of this, and let each owner decide what they wish to keep or remove.
Or……..whats next ………that they will regulate one one’s supposedly “Private Property”…..It is an all -or- none discussion.If you don’t own it all(ie content of one’s property), then we simply have a creeping socialist state.