Here in British Columbia’s lower mainland, many people take the greenery for granted. The trees seem to grow faster here than they do in other parts of the country (like Manitoba where the growing season is much shorter).
Here there are a number of constraints on the development of new houses, so new houses often displace mature stands of trees. …we can infer that the lots for which there was a higher demand fetched a higher price for both developer and builder. …There are plenty of reasons why a property with trees is prefereable over a lot with no trees. …
Here in British Columbia’s lower mainland, many people take the greenery for granted. The trees seem to grow faster here than they do in other parts of the country (like Manitoba where the growing season is much shorter).
Here there are a number of constraints on the development of new houses. We have an international border with the United States (which we can’t move to make more room for houses), We have the ocean (which isn’t moving any time soon), we have the Coastal mountains, which are quite steep and difficult places to build houses, and we have something called the Agricultural Land Reserve ALR which is a set of laws designed to protect farmland and stop ‘urban sprawl’ (Otherwise we would have a city 120 KM long and 25 km wide).
Forest land is almost guaranteed to not be a part of the ALR, so new houses often displace mature stands of trees. For the developer it is a way to quickly regain some of the money he has spent on the land by selling the logs. It also clears the land so there are few restrictions on where the house can stand. Since today’s developers seem intent on subdividing land as greedily as possible (to fit as many dwellings as possible on the smallest possible piece of land, they don’t want to leave 20ft here for a row of trees, since they could squeeze another property in that space. It would seem that the developers can’t be self-policing since they are guided by greed in squeezing the most profit out of a piece of land. So it would fall to the cities and municipalities to ensure that the land being developed is “livable” and protected. Despite the fact that taxes revenues rarely exceed development and maintenance costs within a city, many beureaucrats are still drawn by the allure of tax dollars. Trees don’t pay tax dollars, but the small dwelling squeezed onto a property does pay taxes, so the trees are at a significant disadvantage. For example Surrey British Columbia calls itself the “City of parks”, I think it should be called the “City of clearcuts”
On my way to work over the last few months, there was some land developed offering 8 lots, 3 of which were treed. I noticed that the treed lots sold first, I also noticed that the builders who then built houses on the treed lots, sold their houses first, it would appear that there was a higher demand for those lots which were treed, and according to common economic theory we can infer that the lots for which there was a higher demand fetched a higher price for both developer and builder. If the value of the land was higher we would also expect that the City could realize higher taxes for the treed properties. So we would expect that with a financial incentive to have a treed lot, that developers and cities would be pushing for more treed lots, but they aren’t. If financial incentive isn’t enough to convince builders and developers to be self-regulating, then the incentive to preserve trees must lie in legislation and regulation that will force developers and builders to do what they would otherwise neglect. The case for such regulation is compelling albeit mostly non-financial.
There are plenty of reasons why a property with trees is prefereable over a lot with no trees. Here are some:
1. Beauty. The first reason is beauty. Instead of seeing the neighbour’s oversized shed, or that freeway onramp, you see a beautiful tree that glows with the light of the sun, changes colours in the fall, fills with blossoms in the spring and displays icicles and horfrost in the winter. Green leaves waving in the breeze help make your property a peaceful sanctuary from the rush of everyday life, while effectively hiding eyesores on ajoining properties.
2.Soil retention. The roots of trees grip the soil and in hilly terrain can make the difference between a useable backyard, and having your house slide down the hill into your neighbour’s backyard. Considering the cost of retaining walls, labour and proper drainage, retaining trees is a bargain.
3. Summer cooling. A canopy of leaves can provide the indoor and outdoor space on your property with protection from the sun. This translates to a roof that lasts longer (less thermal abuse), a yard and deck that are more enjoyable in summer, and reduced cooling costs in your house. Conveniently enough,for deciduous trees, in the winter, those leaves disappear allowing in more sun during the darker dreary days of winter, which helps with heating your home.
4. Air quality. Trees do a fantastic job of absorbing CO2 from the air and replacing it with Oxygen, which makes for cleaner more healthy air. They even act as natural deodorizers making the air smell fresher, all of which is important in urban areas where there is a disproportionately high amount of CO2 and pollution.
5. Wildlife Habitat. With very little use of space on the ground, trees provide a significant amount of habitat for birds and other small wildlife. At our house (where we are privileged to back on a small forested park) we are constantly serenaded by pretty songbirds, something which happened much less in houses that were developed in areas without such concentrations of trees.
So this is my pitch to encourage you to buy a property with trees, to plant trees if you don’t already have them on your property. To prefer buying a treed property if you are a builder, to not clearcut a development if you are a developer, and to not allow clearcut development in your city or municipality if you are in such a position of civic oversight. Thanks for reading, I welcome your comments.
