My concern is regarding the unenforced bylaws that appear to be the norm in Surrey. As a taxpayer, I wonder why we are paying the mayor, councillors and general manager other than to sit in ultra-expensive offices and do nothing.
One bylaw that falls into this category allows tree trimming to a 32-per-cent maximum limit. Even after a complaint is filed, the city allows trimming to continue, thus decimating the trees to 50 or 60 per cent with a comment that “we have to be flexible,” which is absurd at best. Trimming of “dry branches” which are perfectly healthy and green is also an excuse. Even after a bylaw officer and city arborist are sent out to inspect a site, the damage continues.
The carnage speaks for itself: old-growth trees stripped of their limbs leaving bare telephone pole-like trunks ensuring no shadows are cast on the adjacent house.
It appears that depending who you hire, who you know and if you have the proper connections, the City of Surrey is a free-for-all entity. Why is the bylaw written if not enforced? Why is it called maximum if can be doubled? Is the bylaw made to be flexible for staff interpretation and discretion?
If this lax and idiotic practice is allowed, soon we will have no trees left in Surrey. Why on Earth anybody who does not like trees would buy a home in an area that is surrounded by them is beyond me. What gives them the right to selfishly change the dynamics of a neighbourhood that the rest of the residents cherish? As a taxpayer I am appalled and have had enough.
Julius. G Bekei