Home & Garden

Next time someone says you can cut down a tree

  • Last Updated:
  • May 9th, 2017 10:16 pm
96 replies
Deal Addict
Feb 23, 2015
1369 posts
342 upvotes
Brampton, ON
Good!

Hope she learns her lesson to not mess with trees.
Deal Addict
Feb 5, 2009
2318 posts
518 upvotes
Newmarket
As much as I like the trees and nature I think the residential property owners should be able to cut or plant them as they wish.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 11, 2007
3804 posts
2413 upvotes
GTA
Good to hear! Without these laws more people would go nuts like this lady. I can't imagine why people would want to remove trees entirely (as opposed to replacing them). Having mature trees is a huge positive to land values. Just look at all of the priciest neighbourhoods.

I cut a mature nuisance tree down recently and by law, replaced it with a new, young tree.
Homerhomer wrote:
Apr 10th, 2017 4:16 pm
As much as I like the trees and nature I think the residential property owners should be able to cut or plant them as they wish.
Except that trees are a shared resource, beautifying the neighbourhood, cleaning the air, and improving the ecosystem. It's similar to why it's illegal to dump motor oil down the drain.
Temp. Banned
Feb 13, 2017
702 posts
814 upvotes
I would just plant 16 cedars for $19.99...lolz lolz
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 27, 2009
3366 posts
1318 upvotes
Ottawa, ON
crocp8 wrote:
Apr 10th, 2017 4:59 pm
I would just plant 16 cedars for $19.99...lolz lolz
She was given a specific list of acceptable options which were valued at about $600 per tree (hence the $10,800 price tag if she doesn't do it).
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jul 30, 2007
18619 posts
3963 upvotes
Toronto
... i guess we know what she is doing in the Victoria day long weekend.
Deal Addict
Feb 5, 2009
2318 posts
518 upvotes
Newmarket
engineered wrote:
Apr 10th, 2017 4:50 pm
Good to hear! Without these laws more people would go nuts like this lady. I can't imagine why people would want to remove trees entirely (as opposed to replacing them). Having mature trees is a huge positive to land values. Just look at all of the priciest neighbourhoods.

I cut a mature nuisance tree down recently and by law, replaced it with a new, young tree.


Except that trees are a shared resource, beautifying the neighbourhood, cleaning the air, and improving the ecosystem. It's similar to why it's illegal to dump motor oil down the drain.
Good points for the most part, except the trees also present safety hazards in populated neighbourhoods, and damage the properties by falling branches, expanding roots and so on. We have no issue with an average of 1000 square feet of living space per person, running lights all the time, warming cars in the winter, and on and on and on and on, yet a neighbour cuts a tree on her own property and we are all up in the arms while millions of hectares of trees are chopped every year. Just saying ;-)
Jr. Member
Aug 25, 2006
102 posts
72 upvotes
Toronto
TLDR, is owner supposed to plant 18 tree's on their own lot (that's nuts)? or in a designated public area specified by city?

While I also agree tree's are nice with many tangible benefits I have a stronger belief that property owners should have the right to do whatever they choose to do with tree's planted on their private property.

Some perspective is warranted... this individual cutting down a couple of tree's pales in comparison to how many trees get destroyed annually through A) Forestry Industry B) Natural causes (Storms, lighting strikes, wildfires, disease, etc.). These stupid bylaws wreak of government over reach directed by a few tree hugger lobbyists/special interests. At this rate makes more sense to just stop planting tree's in urban areas now that they have so many strings attached.
[OP]
Deal Addict
Jul 3, 2011
4335 posts
1609 upvotes
Thornhill
booblehead wrote:
Apr 10th, 2017 5:25 pm
... i guess we know what she is doing in the Victoria day long weekend.
That made me burst out laughing.
[OP]
Deal Addict
Jul 3, 2011
4335 posts
1609 upvotes
Thornhill
dbracer wrote:
Apr 10th, 2017 5:38 pm
TLDR, is owner supposed to plant 18 tree's on their own lot (that's nuts)? or in a designated public area specified by city?

While I also agree tree's are nice with many tangible benefits I have a stronger belief that property owners should have the right to do whatever they choose to do with tree's planted on their private property.

Some perspective is warranted... this individual cutting down a couple of tree's pales in comparison to how many trees get destroyed annually through A) Forestry Industry B) Natural causes (Storms, lighting strikes, wildfires, disease, etc.). These stupid bylaws wreak of government over reach directed by a few tree hugger lobbyists/special interests. At this rate makes more sense to just stop planting tree's in urban areas now that they have so many strings attached.
Great question about the replanting, I suppose it'll be replacement of the three on her lot and rest wherever the city decides. They may even plant it as long as she provides or pays for them.

The reason landlowners in most municipalites as with Markham, are not allowed to just willy nilly cut down trees is because developers going back 4-5 decades now have been forced to provide trees per property and on free space based and in numbers based on whatever formula environmentalists prescribed. In Markham, the city owns at a minimum the first 10 feet of the boulevard and the trees planted there belong to them not the homeowner. Her property was built when builders also had to place at least second tree closer to the house and more depending on lot frontage size. So that's a second mandated tree she wasn't allowed to cut down. I think the problem is that if a homeowner or previous homeowner planted a tree of their own volition even in the backyard, it might be unfair of the city to treat the removal of that tree as a violation. I imagine though that would be really hard to track and so the rule applies across the board,
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 11, 2007
3804 posts
2413 upvotes
GTA
Homerhomer wrote:
Apr 10th, 2017 5:29 pm
Good points for the most part, except the trees also present safety hazards in populated neighbourhoods, and damage the properties by falling branches, expanding roots and so on. We have no issue with an average of 1000 square feet of living space per person, running lights all the time, warming cars in the winter, and on and on and on and on, yet a neighbour cuts a tree on her own property and we are all up in the arms while millions of hectares of trees are chopped every year. Just saying ;-)
In general trees are NOT a safety hazard. If an old tree is a hazard the city does let you cut it down, provided you plant a new one. I would say most people have issues with leaving lights on 24/7, idling cars (there are laws against it), and plenty of others.
Forestry is required to replant for what they cut down, besides, it's in their future interest. Still people are against that.
Cutting down urban trees is very noticeable as it provides a direct benefit to everyone.
dbracer wrote:
Apr 10th, 2017 5:38 pm
TLDR, is owner supposed to plant 18 tree's on their own lot (that's nuts)? or in a designated public area specified by city?
While I also agree tree's are nice with many tangible benefits I have a stronger belief that property owners should have the right to do whatever they choose to do with tree's planted on their private property.
Some perspective is warranted... this individual cutting down a couple of tree's pales in comparison to how many trees get destroyed annually through A) Forestry Industry B) Natural causes (Storms, lighting strikes, wildfires, disease, etc.). These stupid bylaws wreak of government over reach directed by a few tree hugger lobbyists/special interests. At this rate makes more sense to just stop planting tree's in urban areas now that they have so many strings attached.
Nobody cares about a tree in a remote forest struck down by lighting because nature will naturally replace it. The gov't also actively fights forest fires as well.
This isn't a tree hugger/special interest rule. This is rule enacted by officials elected by the population for the benefit of the population. Are you honestly suggesting you would prefer to live in a city with no trees? Wouldn't that be great with no shade, birds, other animals, more flooding and soil erosion? smh.
BTW, you have the freedom to cut down trees for a decent reason, but you have to plant another.

Are you also against noise rules? Would you care if your neighbour was making a racket at all hours of the day/night? It's their property right? so they can do whatever they want in your world.
Or what if they built up shacks on their lawn and had a homeless village living next to you.
Or maybe they started burning tires on their lawn, I bet you'd enjoy that smell.
[OP]
Deal Addict
Jul 3, 2011
4335 posts
1609 upvotes
Thornhill
uwbuchanan wrote:
Apr 10th, 2017 10:36 pm
Law in Canada is so stupid

Trees decreases property values, why do I have to pay to cut down my trees?
Well those are two opinions many do not agree with you on including me.

As was mentioned by someone else, this is done for the benefit of the greater population.
Deal Addict
Jan 25, 2007
2684 posts
697 upvotes
Paris
I wish the developer in our area had been forced to plant more trees. Most people didn't get around to it until 5-6 years later. A nice Maple on the front lawn when this house was built would provide natural shade to the front of the house reducing the need for A/C in the summer, saving power grid time and me money. Instead the trees I planted will be another 15 years before they do anything.
Gbill2004: Thanks but I'll just smell the couch before/if I buy it.

jonnyb: I go in there like PICASSO and toss the glue everywhere, I don't care what house I'm on.

Top