January 28th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
It has taken more than nine years for the city to get to the point where they could pass a bylaw that Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman could vote for with some discomfort.
In his remarks to council he said:
I will be voting in support of the private tree bylaw with some discomfort. I do so only out for respect of the fact that my colleagues were willing to approve amendments that I brought forward that made significant improvements to what was perceived, in December, by me and many members of the public, as not only rushed and ill-conceived, but also completely unreasonable.
It was driven by some sort of emotional and inadequately informed logic. The original iteration of the bylaw in December was premised on the idea that Burlington, which has perhaps a 15% urban tree canopy, should aim to increase it to 30%, including the already well canopied northern rural section of the City.
This was despite any adequate supporting information such as an accurate inventory of trees, an urban forestry plan, or even any understanding what the tree canopy percentage is or has ever been. Keep in mind that that it is likely that the tree canopy in the urban area has increased since many of the houses were built 20 to 65 years ago.
Further, the proposed private tree by law is premised on the Roseland pilot bylaw that was not allowed to run to completion. The December wording of the proposed tree bylaw was not understandable. It included a highly egregious financial burden on home owners who may wish simply to improve their existing homes, many of which under utilize the property on which they are built.
Essentially, the proposed tree bylaw required an owner to pay the city $7,000 for 10 replacement trees in exchange for cutting down a single 50 cm tree. Add to that license fees, removal costs and the need to provide scale drawings of the tree location, the costs may exceed $10,000. This was going to be applied to the entire urban area plus all rural Burlington, all the way up to Derry Road, which was absurd.
We managed to get the Rural area removed, hopefully permanently, and the comparable cost to remove a 50 cm tree down to $2,000 plus fees and removal. We also got agreement that staff will deliver a proper urban tree management plan, a proper inventory and a list of standards so that residents could understand the logic of arborist’s decisions.
The price I will pay for the amendments and improvements is to support the amended bylaw for now, but make no mistake, this private tree bylaw is still rushed and ill-conceived and I expect it will be revised or removed when some disciplined, fact-based logic is finally available.
I fully expect that residents affected by this private tree bylaw will still be very angry with this Council when they discover the consequences of this decision.
Sharman has always been conservatively inclined. He will always push for “more data” and tends to think strategically about decisions he makes on behalf of his constituents and in terms of his own political future – and there is most certainly a strategy on how he advances his role in the political direction of the city. The Chain of Office can be adjusted for anyone who earns the right to wear it.
The Paul Sharman we are seeing now is a much different man than the person who served on the 2010-2014 and the 2014-2018 city council where he had support from former Councillors Craven and Lancaster who tended to follow the Sharman lead. With that support gone and a much harder election win in the October 2018 municipal election we are seeing a much different Councilor.
While reading his comments into the record Councillor Shawna Stolte raised a point of order and asked Sharman to stick to the issue on the table. That was not a move he expected from Stolte – the stunned look on his face was something a usually confident Sharman does not display.
It will backfire. In my part of south Oakville trees are now a liability. I had 2 dead trees at the front of my property that I won’t be replacing. In the back I have a large maple that is split and won’t last more than a few more years. That will be replaced with some tiny ornamental or fruit tree.
Elan, Not a developer, I am just an old guy living downtown who understands that negotiations with developers would yield a better outcome with give and takes, than the “freeze”. Development in many shapes and forms is coming and council made a silly line in the sand which will wash away with the first high tide. Please don’t smear all commentary into two factions…”developers” and the all righteous “anti developers”. It diminish’s your input.
Sharman has it right! Key questions need to be answered–why was the Roseland Pilot not completed before the bylaw extended? (Most of us can guess the answer to this!) What was the identified need–the data that showed homeowners were removing trees at an unconcionable rate? This was not a data-driven decision—no meaningful cost-benefit analysis was done. It was just another ideologically-driven exercise in virtue-signalling that this increasingly socialist mayor and council are so fond of. Meed Ward is doing a terrific job in the role of Big Sister–telling everyone how to run their lives.
I’m sure the raft of developers Sharman represents are not happy that Burlington joins the many other municipalities with similar by-laws which have long been in place. Cudos to this Council for moving past the developer-friendly agenda of the previous Council. I am not sure Sharman can get enough donations to run again if these developers abandon him, given his 2018 campaign donars list.
Comrades, the Politburo is single handedly solving the Climate Crisis! If only facts and figures could back it up, which they do not as Sharman and others have presented in the fall, and we already know Canada’s contribution to Climate change is de minimis. But hey it feels good for this council and uniformed followers and diverts from a hefty tax increase and other bigger blunders by this council.
“hefty tax increase” 2020 Burlington municipal tax increases are amongst the lowest in Halton, and southern Ontario, both in YOY % change and absolute value.
I assume your ‘blunders’ include stopping the developer free-for all in Burlington ( Trees, Official Plan changes) aided and abetted by previous Council backroom, backslapping deals that has put the city in this catch-up position. Or maybe it is Council acting decisively to stop AirBNB event houses from staging 200+ guest wedding parties in residential neighbourhoods. Or maybe the blunder is Councillor Sharman’s objective to “protect green space”, which is on his website, though there does not seem to be enough ‘data’ to get him to get behind green initiatives. Not sure what ‘blunders’ your speaking about, unless you are a developer. Then I get it. Burlington is not so open to them calling the shots anymore.
Agree with Sharman 100%!! He seems to be the only councilor with any common sense!!
I am totally onside with Paul Sharman. This appears to be very heavuy handed, not friendly and very BIG BROTHEr like. It will I am sure cause much dis harmony amongst neigbours at a minimum.
Hoping next council we elect reverses this.