Skip to content

Editorial: Erroneous act

When a Townsite resident arranged to have approximately 60 alder trees taken down in front of their property, it went beyond a simple misunderstanding.

When a Townsite resident arranged to have approximately 60 alder trees taken down in front of their property, it went beyond a simple misunderstanding.

The resident claimed to a City of Powell River employee that they had permission to remove the trees. But, according to the city chief administrative officer Mac Fraser, no one at the city or from landowner PRSC limited Partnership, a corporation co-owned by the city and Tla'amin Nation, gave anyone permission to fall the trees.

By taking matters such as these into their own hands, residents tread on dangerous territory with many potential ramifications. First, cutting down trees without proper permission is an illegal act that could result in legal action and fines. More importantly, the area where the trees were felled is part of a riparian zone, which includes a fish-bearing stream and vegetation that could be disrupted by debris from the cuts and affect the natural surroundings.

According to city director of infrastructure Tor Birtig, some of the cutting might have violated provincial regulations around falling trees within 30 metres of a riparian zone.

Regardless of how residents feel about the areas surrounding their property, and some have raised legitimate questions about PRSC not maintaining the land to the same standards as previous owner Catalyst Paper Corporation, that doesn't give someone the right to take matters into their own hands without proper permission or permitting.

Also, the individuals who actually took the trees down were also in error. An experienced, professional faller should have asked to see proper permits and verified the cut was approved before firing up their chainsaws and proceeding with the work.

The resident responsible for the trees being taken down knew who owned the land. It is now up to the landowner, PRSC, to make the next move and determine what action will be taken."

Any benefit the individuals involved perceived as being worth bypassing essential steps to ensure permission was gained and that planning followed city bylaws, provincial regulations and environmental standards may now be offset by financial costs in the form fines to the individual. Was the act worth it?