You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Parks and Natural Spaces’ category.
Several years ago, when I was a Community Editorial Board columnist with the Guelph Mercury, I published a column examining the issue of property rights. The column was in the context of property owners having the right to demolish heritage buildings. How do we define the line that is crossed when individual rights and the public good are in conflict?
The discussion is relevant again in the context of a proposed tree by-law in the City of Guelph, so I will repost some of the original column here.
*****************
“It’s no accident that private property rights are not part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Such rights were specifically rejected by the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution because the exercise of those rights could interfere with, or be found in opposition to, the public interest.
Section 7 of the Charter, gives us the “right to life, liberty and security of the person”. The Charter protects freedom of religion, free speech, freedom of movement, and many other freedoms that relate to Canadian values. We have the right to own property and the right to enjoyment of that property. But when it comes to rights related to property ownership – there is no “right to profit” or “right to do anything I want”.
Let’s be fair, as a property owner, I do want some rights. But so does my neighbour. He has a right to enjoyment of his property – he can build a fence, create a garden, sit on his deck, build a pool and a whole lot of other things that I may or may not like. The limitations of those rights are set out very clearly in established zoning and property standards by-laws. I have those same rights, as does every property owner in the city.
If my neighbours property rights infringe on my property rights, we have a problem. If my neighbours pursuit of enjoyment of his property is a risk to public safety or health , we also have a problem. That’s where community standards and public interest come in. Public interest must always trump private benefit.
How do we judge what is in the public interest? Thankfully, we have very clear documents and by-laws about what our community values are to help us assess what is in the public interest. We have our Strategic Plan and another nifty little document called the Official Plan. It is very much like the City of Guelph Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It’s filled with really strong statements about what our community values. According to the Official Plan, we value environmental stewardship, heritage protection, high-quality architecture, cultural and social diversity and strong neighbourhood character.
Protection of private property rights is not mentioned as a community objective in the Official Plan. Nor should it be. It’s not in the Strategic Plan either.
Since when is it the role of a municipal councillor to advocate for private property rights? It should be the complete opposite. The purpose of municipal government is to make decisions based on community values and public interest. The Council Code of Ethics specifically states that members of Council must “recognize that the chief function of municipal government at all times is to serve the best interests of all the people.”
Protection of property rights – for individuals or corporations – should therefore not be part of the debating vocabulary of any city councillor.
**********************
The intent of the tree by-law is to preserve the urban canopy for the greater public interest — air quality, soil erosion, energy conservation, decreased urban “heat island” effect, wildlife habitat, quality of life, aesthetics, etc. If we collectively agree there is good reason to have a healthy urban forest, then we collectively bear responsibility to preserve it.
I have received several inquiries about the status of the “Private Tree By-Law” that was presented to the Community Design and Environmental Services committee this past Monday. I am happy to try to add some clarity….
The Tree By-Law report can be viewed HERE (starts on page 22)….
The recommendation in the Tree By-Law report contained 5 clauses. Clauses 1, 2 and 4 were moved and seconded and supported unanimously. These three clauses were to: a) receive the report, b) approve amendments to the existing large lot tree preservation by-law and c) amend the user fee schedule to implement the amended large lot tree by-law.
Clauses 3 and 5 were to: a) enact a tree by-law for small lots (less than 0.2 hectares) and b) to bring forward a plan to fund implementation of the by-law in the 2011 budget.
Clauses 3 and 5 were not moved or seconded by any member of the committee (as Chair, I cannot move or second motions).
Therefore, the committee (including myself) did not vote “against” or to “remove” anything. A Guelph Mercury article is quoted as saying that the committee “voted to remove the provisions of the private tree bylaw dealing with regulated trees on small lot sizes”. This is not accurate – because the small lot tree by-law never made it to the floor to be voted on.
So where does this leave the small lot Tree By-law? Only the motions ratified at committee (Clause 1,2 and 4) will go forward to Council on July 27. However, at that meeting, any member of Council could choose to add Clauses 3 and 5 back in, or add them in as separate motions.
In the past, I have publicly stated that I support the protection and preservation of our urban canopy. I still do.
But there are many ways to do this – the small lot private tree by-law is not the be-all-and-end-all — it is one potential tool of many.
The city must “walk the talk” too – planting more trees on public land, better maintenance practices, increased naturalized areas, etc. I also believe the majority of residential property owners understand the benefits of planting and maintaining trees and are excellent stewards of the urban forest.
The goal behind the tree by-law has merit — to increase the city’s canopy to 40%. A healthy urban forest has immense public benefit – air quality, temperature regulation, energy use reduction, etc.
So the question remains — does the proposed small lot tree by-law do anything to help the city reach its stated outcome of 40% canopy? Is it too much “stick” and not enough “carrot”? Are there better ways to achieve the 40% goal, such as education, tree planting incentives, free trees, etc.? Should we focus more effort on those areas with 10% coverage like industrial and commercial lands (ie. parking lots, my personal pet peeve) ? Residential neighbourhoods are not the problem. I suspect the canopy in R1 (small lots) residential neighbourhoods is well over 50%. (I am working on getting additional info on this. )
It’s still a year away, but the Strategic Urban Forest Master Plan will answer many of these questions. Many municipalities have stronger tree preservation by-laws than the proposed Guelph one. Many municipalities have no tree preservation by-laws. Are we not doing enough or going too far?
I welcome your thoughts, as always…..
LP
From the Community Design and Development Services department….
The City will be looking for suggestions from the public for naming new and unnamed parks, trails, bridges, squares, gardens, buildings, structures and rooms within buildings.
Early in 2010, the City will post a complete list and map of City-owned assets to be named. First consideration by the Naming Committee will be given to those names that have geographic, civic or historic significance of the neighbourhood/community where it shall be located. Second consideration by the Naming Committee will be given to those names that fall under at least one of the following criteria:
The individual will have demonstrated excellence, courage or exceptional service to the citizens of the City of Guelph, the Province of Ontario or Canada
The individual will have worked to foster equality and reduce discrimination
The individual will have risked or given his/her life to save or protect others
Where the individual is a current City employee, the individual will have made an outstanding contribution to the City of Guelph outside of his/her capacity and duties as a City employee or he/she maybe recognized for exceptional service once he/she is no longer a City employee.
For further information or questions please contact Rory Barr Templeton at 519-822-1260 ext. 2436.
Announcement from OUR 3 Bridges Neighbourhood Group:
Hi Everyone,
This announcement is a little tardy but for those who haven’t been down to Water Street in awhile, the rinks are open! There are 2 rinks this year, an enlarged main rink and a small toddler rink. People were actually skating on them as early as Dec 22. Enjoy!
Volunteers required
1) Flooders – We would like to build 6 – 8 flooding teams. Flooding orientation will be Monday night @ 7:30 starting at 80 Water St across from the rink. We would like it if all Rink Rats were to come out so we could share our collective knowledge and all be on the same page. If you are interested in flooding but can’t make it Monday, please email us at info@our3bridges.ca to get on our list and we will train you at a later date.
2) Shovellers – Anyone is welcome to help with shoveling. Snow needs to be shoveled but we also need to clear the rink each time we flood. To get on a volunteer list for this duty please email us at info@our3bridges.ca
The more volunteers the better so we can spread the work around fairly.
We would like to again thank everyone who has contributed in making these rinks possible this year. We are nearing our financial goal. This is truly a community effort and shows that with everyone kicking in, we can accomplish big things!
See you at the rink(s)!
Trevor
An Excerpt from an Information Release from Friends of Royal City Park Group:
“The Friends of Royal City Park have organized a 1 hour vigil on Friday, December 4, 2009 from 7 to 8 pm at Royal City Park. We will assemble at the entrance trail to the park located at Gordon and Water Street to honour and thank the trees for all the benefits they have provided over the last 99 years. The intention is to celebrate the life of the trees and the many memories the trees have provided for ourselves, our children, our grandchildren and past generations. Come and share your memories with us of what these trees and this park means to you and how their loss will affect you. Bring your own mug for hot apple cider. NOTE: We are not affiliated with any other group. We are gathering to express our thanks and love for the trees in Royal City Park, especially the nearly 100-year-old silver maples.”
For more information, contact Laura Murr at 519-824-3606
Our urban forest is a major municipal asset. Cities spend a lot of time, money and resources maintaining “grey” infrastructure, but not enough on “green” infrastructure. Green infrastructure is linked to quality of life, recreation, air quality, urban cooling, carbon offsets, and so many other intangible benefits, such as aesthetic beauty.
Grey infrastructure is, let’s face it, boring. It’s underground, it’s invisible, and rarely appreciated. Green infrastructure is something we enjoy everyday.
It used to be that tree planting and naturalization were community efforts. Scouts, Rotary, OPIRG, Trees for Guelph etc. are still involved in such efforts and are making a difference.
We need to expand the community effort. Council is faced with a tough budget year in 2010. Tree replacements (1 for 1) will likely continue, but we will never make a dent in increasing our canopy at that rate. The saying goes “the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is NOW.”
So let’s rally! Would you “adopt a tree” for your local park?
People buy far-away invisible stars as Christmas gifts. And service orgs adopt a km of roadside highway. Why not adopt a local tree you can see grow everyday and one that your grandchildren can enjoy a generation from now?
Royal City Park needs more trees. The park was originally funded by the IODE as a gift to the Royal City. Will our community continue this tradition? So many individuals and groups benefit from this park — Old University Neighbourhood Association, John McCrae School, the Boathouse, the Animal Hospital, just to name a few. How about adopting a tree?
Guelph Urban Forest Friends (GUFF), Sierra Club, Council of Canadians, LIMITS — would you adopt a tree?
I will. On behalf of my family, I will purchase a tree for Royal City Park.
Anyone else?
