Further to recent stories in the Gazette about proposed developments in Colwood/Langford, I suggest that a tree protection bylaw is required in our area. This would help in shaping our communities for a brighter future.
I am sure our citizens would be in favour of having trees and wetlands dealt with in a different manner than currently. All one has to do is drive along Latoria Road to see clear-cut properties, where wetland areas are being drastically reduced or have disappeared due to infill.
Colwood and Langford councils seem to be in a great hurry to scoop in revenue and are allowing land developers almost a free-for-all. Over and over it appears that councils are not taking local area votersB次元官网网址� voices into consideration on development density concerns. Petitions with hundreds of signatures are cast aside. They are not realizing what they are allowing to be created for our future.
I suggest Dogpatch will resurface. It will appear in a different form. High density can create its own special needs. Civic leaders (land use and planning committee members) should open their eyes and see that allowing a raping of the land does not lead to a healthy outcome. A tree protection bylaw would be a start.
Years ago Saanich enacted a tree protection bylaw, which allowed such developments as Broadmead to be created. The Happy Valley and Latoria Valley areas donB次元官网网址檛 seem to have a hope. Will Bear Mountain be renamed Bare Mountain? Do we want to create a Surrey or a Broadmead?
Jim Coates
Colwood
