Editor:

Re: Controversial tree bylaw to take time, Sept. 23.

As White Rock Mayor Catherine Ferguson, city staff and council members struggle to formulate a new tree policy, they’d do well to look hard at previous attempts to preserve views on the hillside.

This issue, I well recall, was beaten to death going back to the administrations of mayors Bill Hodgson, Art Wahl, Don MacDonald and others, without result.

The answer to all this is that having a view is not an entitlement. Anyone can build a monster house next door to you or in front of you, blocking sunlight and breeze as well as your view. The city won’t stop them.

Same with trees. If you’re on the slope you might be lucky enough to retain a sliver of view, but most of it’s gone forever. You think you paid for your view when you purchased the property, but you really just rent it. A view is an intangible asset, and attempts to regulate it would be a bureaucratic nightmare.

Residents of 50 and 100 years ago had the forethought to leave trees alone, knowing they suck up water, clean the air and are beautiful to behold. As the hillside is slide-prone, they knew without trees their houses could wind up on Washington Avenue – now Marine Drive.

Mayors of long ago who abandoned their efforts to regulate views were right. All we need is a good bylaw with teeth to preserve the trees we’re so lucky to have.

Because council didn’t see fit to provide us with a bridging policy between the old bylaw and the new, trees are being cut down right and left to beat the bylaw.

A capable staff and council should get on with it, instead of stumbling around in the dark looking for trouble with a flashlight.

Mary Garner, White Rock

• • •

This tree bylaw sounds like a dangerous and undemocratic precedent is being considered.

It seems hypocritical that the city could demand that neighbours cut trees to establish a view, but allow the gigantic walls of new houses to be erected that totally shut out established neighbours from their views.

A few disgruntled people or difficult situations should not dictate this bylaw to the whole community.

There is too much at stake.

New houses create many problems, and the city does not address views lost to new development. There is so much that could be improved with better planning.

Communities thrive when we have good relationships with our neighbours that include respect for their enjoyment of their homes. We combine that with a respect of nature, its balance and how it contributes to everyone’s happiness, and we will be able to solve our problems without having to pay our municipal employees to decide for us. We are not fools, are we?

This doesn’t feel like a tree-protection bylaw, as much as a view bylaw. Trees may also provide a modicum of privacy, especially from those who would look down upon the ones below.

We could create a myriad of bylaws – maybe one to require our neighbours to grow trees for our privacy; another could limit trees that make some people suffer with allergies; we could address issues such as noise carried from decks that act as amphitheaters and pumps from hot tubs and pools... the list could go on.

The key is working together in the planning stage. Being considerate of the lives of others is not something that can be blanket legislated.

K. Wuthrich, White Rock