Dear Editor,
With reference to reporter Graeme Wood’s very full coverage of the tree debate (“Stumped,” News, Jan. 29) I would like to add that in the case of new townhouse developments, the pendulum sometimes swings the other way, that is too many trees rather than not enough.
My example is the 84-unit development in Hamilton, where we have lived for the past 21 years — that is from day one.
After a few short years, some trees had to be moved to an open area within the complex because of their closeness to buildings, and soon afterwards eight, pin oaks with diameters of about 20 centimetres were cut down because of their closeness to buildings and the lack of places in which to replant them.
The icing on this cake was the cutting down of 31 maples and pin oaks which the developer had accidentally planted (and city hall had signed off on) along the wrong side of the property line.
If they had been planted on the right side they would have been in the roadway!
Even today we are left with many trees that have been badly disfigured by the need to have major limbs heavily pruned to avoid damage to nearby units.
I am sure the developer originally planted only the minimum number of trees required by the city, but even then it turned out the number far exceeded the available space and no one at city hall could see there was going to be a problem when the trees grew.
Their failure to take this act of nature into account has already ended up costing the owners and will continue to do so as the trees continue to grow in places where there is no room for further growth.
The moral of this story is you can sometimes have too much of a good thing.
N.J.Wilson
Richmond
