Home & Garden

Next time someone says you can cut down a tree

  • Last Updated:
  • May 9th, 2017 10:16 pm
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 27, 2009
2947 posts
999 upvotes
Ottawa, ON
fdl wrote:
Apr 11th, 2017 11:11 am
Sorry but You live here now so you need to embrace or at least accept Canadian values and cultures. Our "greenness" , whether it's grass or trees, whatever, is part of what makes living here special vs some dessert or paved over concrete barren place where you come from. We need more trees not less.

I'm also going to assume you are trolling with all those comments about cutting down the green belt.
I think that poster has to be a troll. Everything I've ever read from their posts is absolutely ridiculous.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 27, 2009
2947 posts
999 upvotes
Ottawa, ON
Jazmina wrote:
Apr 11th, 2017 1:46 pm
Agreed - people are so quick to judge. Shortly after I got possession of my house, I had to get 5 trees taken down (didn't want to) but 2 were diseased and when (not if) they were to fall, it would be on my roof and driveway. Others were dead and would have fallen on my neighbours shed. The article doesn't state why she took down the trees hopefully it was for a legitimate reason, but even then. I doubt people would start "going nuts" and chopping down trees (it's expensive).
If it were legitimate she wouldn't be getting fined. There are ways of doing things legitimately. The trees weren't diseased or a hazard.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 11, 2007
2667 posts
1409 upvotes
GTA
Jazmina wrote:
Apr 11th, 2017 1:46 pm
Agreed - people are so quick to judge. Shortly after I got possession of my house, I had to get 5 trees taken down (didn't want to) but 2 were diseased and when (not if) they were to fall, it would be on my roof and driveway. Others were dead and would have fallen on my neighbours shed. The article doesn't state why she took down the trees hopefully it was for a legitimate reason, but even then. I doubt people would start "going nuts" and chopping down trees (it's expensive).
Nobody is arguing that owners shouldn't be able to cut down trees if there's a good reason.
She may have had valid reasons, but she didn't go through the proper routes. Likely they were healthy trees for her to get a big punishment like that.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 23, 2014
1025 posts
351 upvotes
Vancouver, BC
Quentin5 wrote:
Apr 11th, 2017 11:19 am
I like trees but $1500 to cut it down was not a fun experience
Did that include cutting, disposing, and stump grinding?
Deal Guru
User avatar
Feb 8, 2014
12685 posts
2872 upvotes
Sievert wrote:
Apr 11th, 2017 3:48 pm
Did that include cutting, disposing, and stump grinding?
not stump grinding
Lies, damned lies, statistics and alternative facts
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 9, 2012
1613 posts
633 upvotes
Oakville, ON
Looked up the address on google street view. Looks like all three trees were in the front yard when you compare street view to the picture of the house in the news article.

The trees she cut down appeared to be in good shape and didn't look problematic, but hard to say for sure.

From google maps, looks like there's still some trees in her back yard but bewtween the front and back there's no way that she's going to be able to plant 18 trees on that property! Looks like she abuts an open green space though so maybe they expect her to plant some there or otherwise pay the city to plant them there for her.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 11, 2007
2667 posts
1409 upvotes
GTA
CanadianLurker wrote:
Apr 11th, 2017 4:58 pm
Looked up the address on google street view. Looks like all three trees were in the front yard when you compare street view to the picture of the house in the news article.

The trees she cut down appeared to be in good shape and didn't look problematic, but hard to say for sure.

From google maps, looks like there's still some trees in her back yard but bewtween the front and back there's no way that she's going to be able to plant 18 trees on that property! Looks like she abuts an open green space though so maybe they expect her to plant some there or otherwise pay the city to plant them there for her.
I think I found it. Is this it? 47 Gainsville Ave, Markham
Before https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.8682899, ... 312!8i6656
After Image
I can see why her neighbours were upset. That was a huge nice tree on a very nice, tree lined street. I can't imagine why she'd want to cut it down.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Feb 8, 2014
12685 posts
2872 upvotes
engineered wrote:
Apr 11th, 2017 9:33 pm
I think I found it. Is this it? 47 Gainsville Ave, Markham
Before https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.8682899, ... 312!8i6656
After Image
I can see why her neighbours were upset. That was a huge nice tree on a very nice, tree lined street. I can't imagine why she'd want to cut it down.
Thats not proof she cut down any trees, if we allow for alternative facts then she has more trees now then shown in either image Smiling Face With Open Mouth
Lies, damned lies, statistics and alternative facts
Jr. Member
Apr 13, 2005
115 posts
16 upvotes
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?
Next time you take a breath, just think about this post.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 11, 2007
2667 posts
1409 upvotes
GTA
Quentin5 wrote:
Apr 11th, 2017 9:36 pm
Thats not proof she cut down any trees, if we allow for alternative facts then she has more trees now then shown in either image Smiling Face With Open Mouth
Maybe she could claim it was self defence? lol
Deal Guru
User avatar
Feb 8, 2014
12685 posts
2872 upvotes
engineered wrote:
Apr 11th, 2017 9:57 pm
Maybe she could claim it was self defence? lol
she should run for office, she is "proving" regulation is bad and as long as she claims she didn't cut down any trees citing alternative facts she would be guaranteed 49% of the vote.
Lies, damned lies, statistics and alternative facts
Newbie
Apr 17, 2017
15 posts
3 upvotes
crocp8 wrote:
Apr 10th, 2017 4:59 pm
I would just plant 16 cedars for $19.99...lolz lolz
You aren't allowed, they give you specific guidelines.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Dec 26, 2005
14890 posts
1049 upvotes
Thornhill
Chickinvic wrote:
Apr 11th, 2017 2:12 pm
I think that poster has to be a troll. Everything I've ever read from their posts is absolutely ridiculous.
Yes, uwbuchanan is a known troll in these parts.

bjl
What we do in life echoes in Eternity... and in Google cache.
RFD discounts for Schluter products
Sr. Member
Sep 20, 2008
834 posts
98 upvotes
Toronto
This post made my morning. Trees are the first things I look for when I do an initial walk-through of a new project. If there's a large tree it's always of a concern and the client needs to deal with it before I put pencil to paper.
Project 708
Design . Draft . Build
Residential & Commercial
Member
Oct 2, 2005
396 posts
14 upvotes
engineered wrote:
Apr 10th, 2017 4:50 pm
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.
There is a problem with this logic. If it is a shared resource as is claimed, then then there also should also be a sharing of expenses related to the resource. For example if the tree was damaged due to disease, or weather conditions, would there be a sharing of expenses for the treatment or removal? It is contradictory to consider a resource shared when it comes to the benefits but not the expenses.

Also it is not the same as pouring oil down the drain or creating noisy disturbances. In those cases it causes damage outside the homeowners property. The oil travels to pollute another owners or public water supply. Same for sound.

Where there is benefit provided by the homeowners property, (in this case the tree), the surrounding community reaps the benefit, but the homeowner should not be under any obligation to provide the benefit on an ongoing basis. IMO.

engineered wrote:
Apr 11th, 2017 11:40 am
Again, you agreed to certain rules/bylaws when you bought your house.
Yes, but the government can unilaterally change the rules you agreed to into ones you do not agree to and you are powerless to stop it. So you cannot claim that the howeowner has willing agreed to a set of rules.

Top