I would be negligent or not act on personal ethics if I did not support recent letter writers who witnessed the clearing of second-growth trees on private land, and a second writer who learned that a forest turned into a park does not mean it will be retained as a forest or passive park.
I have an aversion to the myriad soccer fields and the fact that Parks and Rec consider school fields â€œparksâ€ when I cannot even take a walk there with my dog. If I saw every soccer field used consistently, it might be another story; however, we are inundated with the politics of sports.
The environmental offense surreptitiously rests with our Township administration and council members and mayor who are indifferent. Perhaps they believe that taking an environmental stance would be political suicide, or it would at least cut campaign contributions.
Long-time council members have seen my and othersâ€™ delegations regarding tree retention, but have chosen to ignore it.
Newer council members must not have read the papers over the past 13 years, or else they would know the taxpayers, generally speaking, are not happy with Willoughby, and neighbours are disturbed when the man next door takes down all his trees because there is no law limiting him.
It also begs the question, why buy a forested lot if you donâ€™t want trees.
The issue of a bald eagle sighting also brings the legality and due diligence of both the Township and developer. Eagles usually nest close to their feeding grounds, and if, in fact, there was an eagleâ€™s nest, the developer violated a provincial code (BC Wildlife Act. Section 34) that should result in a fine.
We are shocked when teens vandalize a park. I am just as shocked when the Township endorses environmental vandalism.
Residents need to write to their local government or to the newspapers that serve our community.
Cathleen Chance Vecchiato, Brookswood