When the chainsaws finally came out on Deagle Road and cut to pieces a large willow tree, as well as two tall firs, long-time Richmond resident Martha Lastik described the end result as a “dreadful mess.”
The trees came down to make room for a new house – an all too common sight in Richmond these days.
Because some of the trees straddled her property, Lastik actually signed off on the urban clearcut as the developer had indicated to her that an arborist had deemed the trees to be in poor condition.
"I was no help in that area and because I live alone, and the thought of a tree falling on my house, I was a little worried," said Lastik.
Lastik questions whether developers play first fiddle when it comes to tree bylaws in the city. She said her neighbour (who has since moved) had been denied pruning the willow tree before the property was sold. And had it been her asking to cut the trees down, she questions if the process would have been as easy.
“If you live in Richmond you know what goes on; the city bows to the developers,” said Lastik.
It’s an opinion shared by school teacher and provincial and federal Green Party member Michael Wolfe.
"In Richmond when I was supporting the original tree bylaw I thought it would be good. But when you see the amount of exemptions in it, it’s clear it’s just a tool for developers,” said Wolfe.
On Monday Wolfe voiced his displeasure over more tree cuttings on Alexandra Road, to make way for more condominiums in an area he says was originally slated for parkland.
“The report said all trees are in the stage of decay. Everything is going to die is basically what it said,” said Wolfe of the developer’s arborist report.
Indeed, when a developer applies to demolish a home it must provide the city with a survey of the site showing all the bylaw-sized trees (20 centimetres in radius, at chest level). Many arborist reports indicate trees in poor condition, which allows them to be cut down.
Developers may also cut down trees if they are in the way of a new building. Trees must be replaced on site, however, with certain cases allowing for replacements on city-owned land.
Colin Lamb, an arborist for All Round Tree Services, says a long history of illegal or improper tree topping has resulted in many of Richmond’s old trees rotting from the inside.
"A lot of them have issues not for plain eyes to see. A lot have branch rotting and bad stems. …So sometimes (people) see the green on the outside but don't see the rot on the inside," said Lamb.
He said people can sometimes have knee-jerk reactions on both ends of the debate; one person may get angry over the felling of a tree that seems healthy but is, in fact, not, whereas another person will want to cut down a perfectly healthy tree to gain more sunshine in a yard.
"Most of us tree guys who are conscious of doing our jobs properly. We try to have a rapport with the city," said Lamb.
In 2006 the city started inspection-based tree bylaws, which Lamb says has struck a good balance, to date.
“I personally think its satisfactory," he said, noting with better education and tree trimming practices will come healthier trees in the decades to come.
A study released by TD Canada Trust this week indicates a tree in an urban setting has a tangible average value of $700 when factoring in health, environmental, social and economic spinoffs.
City spokesperson Ted Townsend said the city's bylaws must strike a balance between being overly bureaucratic and protecting trees, as to support the city's environmental endeavours.
Since 2006 about half of all permit applications result in a tree being cut down and close to 20,000 trees have been replaced. The city plants about 500 trees every year.
Last month some citizens also took issue with the mature, deciduous trees that were cut down for expansions at Minoru Park. The city has vowed to replace four times as many trees than were taken down.
@WestcoastWood
