Home & Garden

Next time someone says you can cut down a tree

  • Last Updated:
  • May 9th, 2017 10:16 pm
Member
Oct 2, 2005
396 posts
14 upvotes
licenced wrote:
Apr 19th, 2017 6:56 pm
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.
I understand the bylaws. I'm not arguing that the woman did not violate the bylaws. I expect she did and was punished for it. I'm saying that the fact that the city can create bylaws which can override property rights in the name of the "greater good" far oversteps what it should be allowed to do. Are there any limits on what a government can do for the greater good? Can the city for example decide that it has a problem of affordable housing and homelessness, so can it force a homeowner to use his extra bedroom to provide shelter to a stranger?

The unfortunate aspect of our society is that property rights are not entrenched and the bounds are constantly changing. Beyond the threat of government defeat, there are not enough bounds on the power of government.
Deal Addict
Jan 25, 2007
2032 posts
494 upvotes
Paris
mexicanbandit wrote:
Apr 20th, 2017 6:18 am
The unfortunate aspect of our society is that property rights are not entrenched and the bounds are constantly changing. Beyond the threat of government defeat, there are not enough bounds on the power of government.
Most of the time when I see people say these things it's because they are prevented from doing something but then when they want to prevent someone else, it's all fine and good.

Can I move in next door, level the house, and put in a 9 story high rise for homeless drug addicts? Of course not. You need to give up on your dreams of a clear cut yard to prevent a 9 story drug den.

Can I spend money on whatever I want? No, because my wife has a say (and the kids to a lesser extent) in our household budget. I gave up that freedom to have a family and gain something else.

Everything has a cost.
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.
Member
Oct 2, 2005
396 posts
14 upvotes
Jerico wrote:
Apr 20th, 2017 9:11 am
Most of the time when I see people say these things it's because they are prevented from doing something but then when they want to prevent someone else, it's all fine and good.
This is possibly true but that is not my position. I would advocate that my neighbours have the same rights as I would.
Jerico wrote:
Apr 20th, 2017 9:11 am
Can I move in next door, level the house, and put in a 9 story high rise for homeless drug addicts? Of course not. You need to give up on your dreams of a clear cut yard to prevent a 9 story drug den.

Can I spend money on whatever I want? No, because my wife has a say (and the kids to a lesser extent) in our household budget. I gave up that freedom to have a family and gain something else.

Everything has a cost.
Do you let you kids veto your choices? Is there any limit to the say they have in your financial decisions? I suspect you give your kids consideration but ultimately you/your wife as shared co-owners have the ultimate say. With a governmental policy of "public good trumps all" only the government has the ultimate power to decide.
Deal Expert
May 30, 2005
38788 posts
1201 upvotes
Richmond Hill
I'm surprised nobody mentioned this yet, but aside from providing clean air, trees serve a big purpose of locking in the soil to prevent against erosion. Without trees, our soil would become loose, and a small flood (like the one we had in 2013) would have eroded a lot of the soil away. Making sure everyone has at least one tree on their property is a small step to prevent that.

Whoever thinks they should be freely allowed to cut down any of their trees should just move to the countryside.
**BRAND NEW** Coway AP-1012GH Smart Air Purifier with HEPA Filter - $130
**75% OFF Retail!**

Silver Coins | Coway AP-1012GH Smart Air Purifier with HEPA Filter
Heatware | RFD Feedback
Deal Addict
Feb 5, 2009
2192 posts
404 upvotes
Newmarket
The biggest threat to the environment is having children, yet the government is doing quite the opposite by paying those horrendous child credits, yet a tree cut from the property is such a big deal.
Crying Face

The folks who are so oppose to a tree being cut on someone's property please tell me:
how many children do you have or are planning to have
how many cars per household, and of those cars how many are suv or trucks
what is the square footage per person
how much garbage is disposed from your property ever week
how many TV per person in your household
......
Deal Guru
User avatar
Feb 8, 2014
12698 posts
2890 upvotes
Homerhomer wrote:
Apr 20th, 2017 10:47 am
The biggest threat to the environment is having children, yet the government is doing quite the opposite by paying those horrendous child credits, yet a tree cut from the property is such a big deal.
Crying Face

The folks who are so oppose to a tree being cut on someone's property please tell me:
how many children do you have or are planning to have
how many cars per household, and of those cars how many are suv or trucks
what is the square footage per person
how much garbage is disposed from your property ever week
how many TV per person in your household
......
What a crazy argument, because many things produce carbon we should argue for cutting down trees to expand the problem.
So your arguing the only options are lose or lose worse, great (false) choices Face With Tears Of Joy
Lies, damned lies, statistics and alternative facts
Deal Addict
Feb 5, 2009
2192 posts
404 upvotes
Newmarket
Quentin5 wrote:
Apr 20th, 2017 10:51 am
What a crazy argument, because many things produce carbon we should argue for cutting down trees to expand the problem.
So your arguing the only options are lose or lose worse, great (false) choices Face With Tears Of Joy
Not at all, my point is the biggest threats should be tackled first, then the trivial once like the one argued here will not be an issue.
BTW, I do not, and quite likely the others, do not argue for cutting down the trees, but we argue against intrusion into our property.

Let's look at the deforestation in Canada through the government eyes, and let's assume this is all fact.
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/node/13419

Our government claims we are the leaders in the category, yet we still lost 34K hectares to deforestation in 2014, and were losing 3 times as much 25 years ago. Given the size of Canada the number is pretty small, but it's still millions of trees lost, on the global scale obviously the situation is more dire (amazon, asia), but we worry about few trees on somebody's property. Not sure where is the crazy in my argument, pretty straight forward.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Feb 8, 2014
12698 posts
2890 upvotes
Homerhomer wrote:
Apr 20th, 2017 11:37 am
Not at all, my point is the biggest threats should be tackled first, then the trivial once like the one argued here will not be an issue.
BTW, I do not, and quite likely the others, do not argue for cutting down the trees, but we argue against intrusion into our property.

Let's look at the deforestation in Canada through the government eyes, and let's assume this is all fact.
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/node/13419

Our government claims we are the leaders in the category, yet we still lost 34K hectares to deforestation in 2014, and were losing 3 times as much 25 years ago. Given the size of Canada the number is pretty small, but it's still millions of trees lost, on the global scale obviously the situation is more dire (amazon, asia), but we worry about few trees on somebody's property. Not sure where is the crazy in my argument, pretty straight forward.
Well then i will define racism, misogyny, death and destruction to be trivial and the birth rate to be the major threat :facepalm:
Nice try, also climate change, and environmental destruction are trivial, as is income distribution, all small potatoes that we should ignore Face With Tears Of Joy

Just so you know our birth rate is below replacement level :rolleyes:
Since that problem is now solved we can focus on the "trivial things"
Lies, damned lies, statistics and alternative facts
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 9, 2012
1617 posts
648 upvotes
Oakville, ON
mexicanbandit wrote:
Apr 20th, 2017 10:14 am
This is possibly true but that is not my position. I would advocate that my neighbours have the same rights as I would.



Do you let you kids veto your choices? Is there any limit to the say they have in your financial decisions? I suspect you give your kids consideration but ultimately you/your wife as shared co-owners have the ultimate say. With a governmental policy of "public good trumps all" only the government has the ultimate power to decide.
Not so much.

We have an independent judiciary that ultimately decides.

If you and/or like-minded individuals think that something the government has done goes too far, then you may pursue your concerns via the courts. The courts will then rule on the matter and either strike down the government's overreach or will uphold it.

This is the check & balance that we have for the government.
Member
Oct 2, 2005
396 posts
14 upvotes
CanadianLurker wrote:
Apr 20th, 2017 12:01 pm
Not so much.

We have an independent judiciary that ultimately decides.

If you and/or like-minded individuals think that something the government has done goes too far, then you may pursue your concerns via the courts. The courts will then rule on the matter and either strike down the government's overreach or will uphold it.

This is the check & balance that we have for the government.
That would be possible if property rights were enshrined in the constitution. They have not been. As a result there is no basis to challenge a government which asserts control over private property.
Member
Oct 2, 2005
396 posts
14 upvotes
As I see it the issue with trees is this: Trees have many benefits, including ascetics, providing cleaner air, shade, erosion prevention, however they also have many drawbacks such as, maintenance costs when diseased, nuisance of fallen leaves, liability due damage, the prevention of land use for other purposes, obscuring of sunlight, etc.

Many of the benefits are shared between the tree owner and the community, however virtually ALL of the drawbacks fall on the owner. At some point the owner determines that the drawbacks outweigh the benefits and no longer wants to keep the tree. The community ONLY considers the benefits it has accrued and thus there is a lop-sided determination. Unfortunately for the owner, they have no power to prevent the communities will being imposed.
Deal Addict
Jan 25, 2007
2032 posts
494 upvotes
Paris
mexicanbandit wrote:
Apr 20th, 2017 12:03 pm
That would be possible if property rights were enshrined in the constitution. They have not been. As a result there is no basis to challenge a government which asserts control over private property.
You can run against them. If enough people think like you, then you could cut all the trees down in the city if you wanted. But clearly, even here on RFD, the majority don't agree with you. I'm sure SOMEWHERE in the word there is a place where you can cut down whatever you want, it's just not where you live. Where you live a majority of people think trees are a shared resource and restrict you.

Can you drain your eavestroughs into the sewers where you live? Can you 100% pave your lawn? You are restricted from a lot of things. Maybe whatever you want to do with your house I want to do something 100% WORSE than you would object to. Maybe I want a yellow house 7 stories tall but only 12 feet wide. And antique cars as nesting places for birds on the front lawn.

George is appropriate here
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.
Member
Oct 2, 2005
396 posts
14 upvotes
Jerico wrote:
Apr 20th, 2017 12:15 pm
You can run against them. If enough people think like you, then you could cut all the trees down in the city if you wanted. But clearly, even here on RFD, the majority don't agree with you. I'm sure SOMEWHERE in the word there is a place where you can cut down whatever you want, it's just not where you live. Where you live a majority of people think trees are a shared resource and restrict you.

Can you drain your eavestroughs into the sewers where you live? Can you 100% pave your lawn? You are restricted from a lot of things. Maybe whatever you want to do with your house I want to do something 100% WORSE than you would object to. Maybe I want a yellow house 7 stories tall but only 12 feet wide. And antique cars as nesting places for birds on the front lawn.

George is appropriate here
Yes I'm restricted in a lot of things. It is obvious that a majority will always bully a minority. Most people will favour a position of self-interest so if they themselves are not in a situation where they have to have a tree cut down they are all in favour of protection of trees for "common good". When suddenly they can't build a shed or deck they want because they can't cut down a tree on their property, they suddenly have a change in position. It doesn't bother me in the least if other poster agree with me or not.
Deal Addict
Jan 25, 2007
2032 posts
494 upvotes
Paris
mexicanbandit wrote:
Apr 20th, 2017 12:31 pm
It doesn't bother me in the least if other poster agree with me or not.
And yet you have posted a dozen times in this thread... It also seems to bother you that you are firmly in the minority on this issue.
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.
Member
Oct 2, 2005
396 posts
14 upvotes
Jerico wrote:
Apr 20th, 2017 12:46 pm
And yet you have posted a dozen times in this thread... It also seems to bother you that you are firmly in the minority on this issue.
On the contrary. I relish being in the minority.

Top