Opinion

Unnecessary bylaw

News columnist Mark Rushton has rightly said that the tree protection bylaw is unnecessary, and just harasses the public.

It should be abrogated.

Trees standing in front of the houses should be considered the property of the dwellers, and they should be free to trim, cut or uproot them.

We are all conscious of the importance of forestation, and people seldom do something to harm it.

I support  Mark in this respect.

Nagindar Singh Rangoowal

We encourage an open exchange of ideas on this story's topic, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. Personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off-topic comments may be removed, and comment privileges revoked, per our Terms of Use. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.

You might like ...

Photo: Grade 8 Eagles triumph with perfect season
 
CP Holiday Train stopping in Pitt Meadows
 
Vancouver-area man victim of hit and run in Mission
EDITORIAL: Team players
 
Abandonment of small streams
 
Maple Ridge can do more
UNCOMMON SENSE: Atheists can enjoy Christmas regardless of Christ
 
Jon Stewart, Obama, Elizabeth Warren sound off on American government shutdown
 
NDP’s survival is on the line

Community Events, November 2014

Add an Event


Read the latest eEdition

Browse the print edition page by page, including stories and ads.

Nov 21 edition online now. Browse the archives.