The Value of a Tree

Why can’t the new owner of a piece of property within city limits destined to support their home determine which trees to remove from their chosen piece of property?

You don’t have to be a hard-core environmentalist to be dismayed when a large tract of previously forested land becomes clear-cut to make way for a housing development.

One only has to look at the edge of Elizabeth Lake to see the evidence of what happens when trees are removed on mass, cycle down Victoria Avenue after a rainstorm or just watch as heavy rain washes out paths of gravel from areas with no vegetation. The collection of debris, mud and water disturbance raises issues for water systems both natural and mechanical as well as for land stability. Haven’t we all heard enough about storms and floods this summer to seriously look at what is happening in our own back yard? We know tree roots act as a mesh to hold the soil in place as well as conserve the water only to release it again in a purified form into the atmosphere. Who needs to take responsibility for this kind of land stewardship? Should it be left in the hands of developers whose primary goal is to make money, not care for the land?

Does the developer need the money for the wood?

Is it just easier to service the lots?

Is enjoyment gained from what to some just seems like wanton destruction?

Does view take precedence over soil retention, flood prevention, cooling of the air in summer, air purification, heat retention in the winter and wind baffling?

Should the monetary value of a dead tree take precedence over the environmental and aesthetic value of a living tree?

Is it possible to compromise?

Are there not rules to play by?

What responsibility does a developer have for replacing the value of those trees in new trees?

Should land cost less if all the trees have been removed or more if the trees remain?


Thoughts? Solutions?