Home & Garden

Next time someone says you can cut down a tree

  • Last Updated:
  • May 9th, 2017 10:16 pm
Deal Expert
User avatar
Oct 26, 2003
26688 posts
1650 upvotes
Winnipeg
what's the reason to cut them down? those are nice trees, now it looks like crap, i think the property value went down as result of that.
4930k/32gb/256gb ssd/8tb hdd/win10pro/msi 290
bst/free stuff/btc/ether
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 11, 2007
3597 posts
2247 upvotes
GTA
mexicanbandit wrote:
Apr 19th, 2017 12:33 pm
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.
Wrong, you may disagree with it, but that's now how property ownership works. There are shared resources that owners must maintain. That includes sound levels, appearance, sidewalk snow shovelling, water run-off, etc. That said, I think the city may even help and provide a new tree if it is diseased (like for ash borer beetles).

Cutting down a tree does affect others. It ruins the view, it removes shade, it removes clean air/adds pollution, etc. If the tree was in your house, where nobody could see it, then you'd be free to do what you want with it.

That's great that you have that opinion, but most people do not share it, which is why we have these bylaws. If you don't like them, you could try to change them or move somewhere where you can clear cut all of your trees. I'm sure that'd be a nice place... maybe a desert perhaps?
mexicanbandit wrote:
Apr 19th, 2017 12:33 pm
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.
Well, it's not really unilaterally. The city makes bylaws at the request of its voters, including yourself. If you want to change the laws, you are not powerless. You could gather petitions, lobby your representatives, or run for gov't yourself, but you are at the mercy of the democracy, as with all laws in this country. Just like if you want to grow marijuana right now it would be illegal, but next year it may not be. Or if they created a new law making alcohol illegal.
When you moved there you know the rules, if city changed the rules, they wouldn't be retro-active if you had already cut down trees. If the laws change, then you could move somewhere where others share your view on tree cutting.
That said, I'm pretty sure most municipalities already require a permit to cut down large trees, so your point is somewhat academic.
Member
Oct 2, 2005
396 posts
14 upvotes
engineered wrote:
Apr 19th, 2017 2:15 pm
Wrong, you may disagree with it, but that's now how property ownership works. There are shared resources that owners must maintain. That includes sound levels, appearance, sidewalk snow shovelling, water run-off, etc. That said, I think the city may even help and provide a new tree if it is diseased (like for ash borer beetles).

Cutting down a tree does affect others. It ruins the view, it removes shade, it removes clean air/adds pollution, etc. If the tree was in your house, where nobody could see it, then you'd be free to do what you want with it.

That's great that you have that opinion, but most people do not share it, which is why we have these bylaws. If you don't like them, you could try to change them or move somewhere where you can clear cut all of your trees. I'm sure that'd be a nice place... maybe a desert perhaps?
Yes, you are right it is not how property ownership works, but it is how property ownership is supposed to work. Afterall if ownership doesn't empower to make decisions about the property in question it is a very "weak" ownership. What you are saying, and, btw I agree, is that it is an illusion that we "own" property.

Also, at least in my city the city doesn't help. I have had ashes which were diseased. The city said that private trees are the owners to deal with. They do not provide compensation or replacement. Do you see why this is seemingly contradictory to call it a "shared resource".?
engineered wrote:
Apr 19th, 2017 2:15 pm
Well, it's not really unilaterally. The city makes bylaws at the request of its voters, including yourself. If you want to change the laws, you are not powerless. You could gather petitions, lobby your representatives, or run for gov't yourself, but you are at the mercy of the democracy, as with all laws in this country. Just like if you want to grow marijuana right now it would be illegal, but next year it may not be. Or if they created a new law making alcohol illegal.
When you moved there you know the rules, if city changed the rules, they wouldn't be retro-active if you had already cut down trees. If the laws change, then you could move somewhere where others share your view on tree cutting.
That said, I'm pretty sure most municipalities already require a permit to cut down large trees, so your point is somewhat academic.
I understand how government works. What I challenge is the assertion that it is a willing contract between parties as was asserted. It is not. If an owner didn't like the change in rules that were made they would have to incur significant and uncompensated financial costs to move. Such would not be the case in the case of a contract between parties. IOW, I understand that this is how our government works. It is disingenuous to justify it by saying the rules are "fair" because they have been agreed to. They have not. They have been unilaterally imposed.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 11, 2007
3597 posts
2247 upvotes
GTA
mexicanbandit wrote:
Apr 19th, 2017 2:53 pm
Yes, you are right it is not how property ownership works, but it is how property ownership is supposed to work. Afterall if ownership doesn't empower to make decisions about the property in question it is a very "weak" ownership. What you are saying, and, btw I agree, is that it is an illusion that we "own" property.

Also, at least in my city the city doesn't help. I have had ashes which were diseased. The city said that private trees are the owners to deal with. They do not provide compensation or replacement. Do you see why this is seemingly contradictory to call it a "shared resource".?

I understand how government works. What I challenge is the assertion that it is a willing contract between parties as was asserted. It is not. If an owner didn't like the change in rules that were made they would have to incur significant and uncompensated financial costs to move. Such would not be the case in the case of a contract between parties. IOW, I understand that this is how our government works. It is disingenuous to justify it by saying the rules are "fair" because they have been agreed to. They have not. They have been unilaterally imposed.
It isn't contradictory, but I suppose you free to feel it's a bad deal. As a home owner, you did enter the property ownership knowing there were bylaws, and that new bylaws could be enacted at any time, so I would call that a fair deal. Nobody was hiding the fact that there are bylaws.
Nobody said property ownership wasn't "weak". In fact the gov't can appropriate your property if it deems it is in the public's interest.

Owning a car is a similar situation. You fully own the car and can do what you want, as long as it doesn't break any regulations. ie. you can't remove headlights, mirrors, emissions control devices, etc.
Sr. Member
Sep 20, 2008
879 posts
109 upvotes
Toronto
divx wrote:
Apr 19th, 2017 1:24 pm
what's the reason to cut them down? those are nice trees, now it looks like crap, i think the property value went down as result of that.
Home buyer (investor) wants to build a huge addition to the back and do interior renos, aka a flip. Trees were in the way for future planning AND she didn't want any trees showing on the new survey. Me thinks $10k is peanuts for her foreign money. Just a few less designer accessories she can buy this month.
Project 708
Design . Draft . Build
Residential & Commercial
Deal Expert
User avatar
Oct 26, 2003
26688 posts
1650 upvotes
Winnipeg
Faemow wrote:
Apr 19th, 2017 5:19 pm
Home buyer (investor) wants to build a huge addition to the back and do interior renos, aka a flip. Trees were in the way for future planning AND she didn't want any trees showing on the new survey. Me thinks $10k is peanuts for her foreign money. Just a few less designer accessories she can buy this month.
at the cost of gta RE, 10k is certainly pocket change
4930k/32gb/256gb ssd/8tb hdd/win10pro/msi 290
bst/free stuff/btc/ether
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 11, 2007
3597 posts
2247 upvotes
GTA
Faemow wrote:
Apr 19th, 2017 5:19 pm
Home buyer (investor) wants to build a huge addition to the back and do interior renos, aka a flip. Trees were in the way for future planning AND she didn't want any trees showing on the new survey. Me thinks $10k is peanuts for her foreign money. Just a few less designer accessories she can buy this month.
Yup, I've heard it's a problem with shady developers as well. Buy land, deforest, pay fines, build condo.
Member
Oct 2, 2005
396 posts
14 upvotes
engineered wrote:
Apr 19th, 2017 4:27 pm
It isn't contradictory, but I suppose you free to feel it's a bad deal. As a home owner, you did enter the property ownership knowing there were bylaws, and that new bylaws could be enacted at any time, so I would call that a fair deal. Nobody was hiding the fact that there are bylaws.
Nobody said property ownership wasn't "weak". In fact the gov't can appropriate your property if it deems it is in the public's interest.

Owning a car is a similar situation. You fully own the car and can do what you want, as long as it doesn't break any regulations. ie. you can't remove headlights, mirrors, emissions control devices, etc.
The situations are not analogous. You are wrong. You can for example remove the headlights from a car and still legally own it. What you cannot do is drive it on a public street. In order to drive it down a street owned by the public the public sets some requirements.

You are right that i feel it is a bad deal. I think many others do a well. The issue is that that it is the only deal available under the current system even with oppressive regulations.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 11, 2007
3597 posts
2247 upvotes
GTA
mexicanbandit wrote:
Apr 19th, 2017 5:59 pm
The situations are not analogous. You are wrong. You can for example remove the headlights from a car and still legally own it. What you cannot do is drive it on a public street. In order to drive it down a street owned by the public the public sets some requirements.

You are right that i feel it is a bad deal. I think many others do a well. The issue is that that it is the only deal available under the current system even with oppressive regulations.
Poor us, we're sooooo oppressed by our gov't! I have a right to dirty air, and to make my neighbours' air dirtier too by cutting down all the trees! We should move to somewhere without a functional gov't. How about the moon? There aren't any trees there either, so bonus! smh.
Member
Oct 2, 2005
396 posts
14 upvotes
engineered wrote:
Apr 19th, 2017 6:05 pm
Poor us, we're sooooo oppressed by our gov't! I have a right to dirty air, and to make my neighbours' air dirtier too by cutting down all the trees!
Agree!

A far better approach would be, if mature trees were a shared resource of benefit to the community, for the city to provide an incentive, such as a tax-break on property taxes, for each mature tree on the property. Not only would that encourage owners to keep trees, it would encourage other to plant trees.
Last edited by mexicanbandit on Apr 19th, 2017 6:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 23, 2015
1242 posts
490 upvotes
Newmarket, ON
I don't understand why someone would want to cut down a tree. Trees are beautiful. Do some people not think so?

To me, trees, grass, plants, bushes, etc are much nicer to look at than concrete and asphalt.
[OP]
Deal Addict
Jul 3, 2011
4288 posts
1549 upvotes
Thornhill
mexicanbandit wrote:
Apr 19th, 2017 5:59 pm
The situations are not analogous. You are wrong. You can for example remove the headlights from a car and still legally own it. What you cannot do is drive it on a public street. In order to drive it down a street owned by the public the public sets some requirements.
That's correct, you can't that's because while you have the right to do whatever you want to your vehicle, you do not have the right to affect what is called 'the greater good' by driving that unsafe vehicle down the road where there are other people.

I do believe that's the point engineered is trying to make to you.

Your right to do what you will on your property does not give you the right to impose any unwanted effects on your neighbours.

We are a law and order society. We elect people and empower them to, by committee, without our further input, act on our behalf as per their conscience and beliefs.

What you're technically arguing for is governance by 100% consensus which is impossible.

Any specific argument here in defense of this particular homeowner is semantics in that the rules are clear. The by-laws are clear as to what she must do if she wishes to change anything on her property from the landscaping to the building and if she chooses to continue living in Markham those rules apply to her. She chose to ignore them.

Her choices were clear - adhere to City's by-laws and if you can't move somewhere more accommodating because the city owes her nothing of the sort.
[OP]
Deal Addict
Jul 3, 2011
4288 posts
1549 upvotes
Thornhill
There's always some off the wall people.

Some whacko promoting the cleansing of the human race is quoted as someone who is genuinely for the people at large as a rebuttal.

Might as well just come out and state, no, there is no greater good, Everyone should be able to do as they choose, If the neighbour on your right wants to raise pigs and cows in a 10 x 20 yard in the city, let them.

If the neighbour on your left wants to assemble his punk band in his backyard and blast away from 2 a.m to 5 a.m every day then have at it.

If the neighbour behnd you wants to erect a 7 storey car park in a residential zone, then so be it and

If the neighbour across the street decided to open a bordello, gambling house, meth lab and biker club house then why not.

Because after all, Canada's ideal of the greater good is,in your mind, the same as Hitler's idea of the greater good.

Unbelievable, Think first!
pootza wrote:
Apr 19th, 2017 9:34 pm
..
Deal Guru
User avatar
Feb 8, 2014
13196 posts
3212 upvotes
licenced wrote:
Apr 19th, 2017 10:53 pm
There's always some off the wall people.

Some whacko promoting the cleansing of the human race is quoted as someone who is genuinely for the people at large as a rebuttal.

Might as well just come out and state, no, there is no greater good, Everyone should be able to do as they choose, If the neighbour on your right wants to raise pigs and cows in a 10 x 20 yard in the city, let them.

If the neighbour on your left wants to assemble his punk band in his backyard and balst away from 2 a.m t0 5 a.m ever day then have a it.

If the neighbour behnd you wants to erect a 7 storey car park in a residential zone, then so be it and

If the neighbour across the street decided to open a bordello, gambling house, meth lab and biker club house then why not.

Because after all, Canada's ideal of the greater good is,in your mind, the same as Hitler's idea of the greater good.

Unbelievable!
Indeed, racism, misogyny and alternative facts are far better then progress :facepalm:
Its shocking how badly donald is doing, the people wanted the dumbest person they could find and some apparently prefer failure
But not to worry, a new scapegoat is just around the corner and that will fix everything till the next smack from reality which will lead to yet a new scapegoat...
Lies, damned lies, statistics and alternative facts
Deal Addict
Jan 25, 2007
2556 posts
662 upvotes
Paris
The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property ~ John Locke

Sometimes society needs protection from individuals... speeding laws, bylaws, tree laws. The issue with trees specifically is that you cannot replace them at the drop of a hat.

On the farm my Mom grew up on there are sugar maples near the lane way that are over 200 years old (we actually think they are pushing 300 based on historical evidence). Outside of disease or imminent threat, what right do I have to cut that tree down on a whim? My mother as a 5 year old used a swing in it's branches, as did I, as did my kids. The tree was already at least 135 before my mother even saw it.

It's one thing to knock down a garage, or tear up a lawn both of which can be easily replaced but to cut a tree that shades your neighbour in the summer and replant you are talking a GENERATION or longer to get back to where we were before some temporary owner that has a 5-7 year residency plan decided a tree wasn't sightly.
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