Dave Hall â€“ No. A tree protection by-law was introduced and defeated only a few years ago on the basis of a community sense that this infringed on personal property rights, was cost prohibitive, and onerous to administer. What should be introduced is a â€œHeritageâ€ tree designation Bylaw to identify significant trees of historical importance particularly on City land. There also should be some consideration of a Tree Preservation Incentive Program that might reward those that voluntarily inventory their own trees and receive something akin to a carbon tax rebate (perhaps through a tax assessment reduction) in recognition that maintaining trees provides community benefit both in terms of health and general ambiance.
Miriam Marshall â€“ Yes. As we only have four-square miles within our City and the need for development in some areas, I think we should have a bylaw to guide our growth. However, this bylaw must be written in a manner where it does not absolutely remove the rights of residents on their property, nor cost land owners thousands of dollar to remove a hazardous or problematic tree (i.e., pay for – Arborist report, City permit, tree removal and chipping service, etc.).
Nathan Pachal â€“ Donâ€™t Know. A proposed tree protection bylaw was introduce by the City of Langley in 2010. It was flawed. More trees got cut down because of that proposed bylaw than at any other time I can remember. That bylaw didnâ€™t pass. It seemed like it was a solution looking for a problem. Before supporting a new tree protection bylaw, I would want to see that there is a clear problem that needs to be resolved, and that it has the broad support of the community.
Carla Robin â€“ No. Experience has shown that it can work against the reason it has been created for. The best approach is to educate the community and developers about the importance of trees in our environmental chain and how important they are in the health of the City.