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 ...

COLUMN: Concentrate on concrete development
 
The life aquatic: Autistic swimmer finds joy in the pool
 
What to do with school boards?
Richmond couple pitch touchscreen innovation to Dragons’ Den
 
Afghanistan mission has left deep imprint on Langley
 
EDITORIAL: Team players
Body found in Langley
 
‘Resilient’ Mariners win football title
 
Doris Blair passes away at 95

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.