From the Argus
Brighton City Council member Jon Stoppels doesn't believe the city has sufficient rules to protect trees and has been pushing hard to get an anti-clear-cutting ordinance on the books as soon as possible.
His fellow council members don't see the rush and held off holding a first reading of a proposed clear-cutting rule. On Thursday, the council voted 5-2 to send the proposed tree ordinance to the Planning Commission for review, which council members said was the standard procedure. Stoppels and council member John Tunis voted against the motion.
"I don't think Brighton has a problem with trees," council member Kate Lawrence said. "I don't think there's been clear-cutting to a catastrophic degree."
Council member Kathy Jones agreed. She said she wasn't comfortable having a first reading of the clear-cutting ordinance until the commission had reviewed it first.
By moving quickly on the matter, she said she feared the city was having a "knee-jerk reaction" to one incident in which a property owner cleared some trees and shrubs from his small parcel on Grand River Avenue.
City resident Elizabeth Walker raised concerns about how the rule might affect her. She owns 7 acres of heavily wooded property in the city and believes the new ordinance targets her.
"I'm going ballistic, listening to this tree ordinance discussion," Walker told the council.
"There are so many questions about it," she added.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
10 comments:
This is what you chose to post from today’s Press & Argus? Unbelievable. Almost as unbelievable as calling the Sierra Club extremists. Comer on dan.
I'm working on a post relating to the Argus editorial if that's what your asking.
I see your misguided response, but no excepts.
Kindergarten Kevin, the Sierra Club ARE extremists, and only liberals like you believe otherwise.
As for the tree ordinance, this is pretty absurd. If a property owner is not to be allowed to cut down a few trees without government interference, what IS the point of owning property? A person gets to own property and thereby pay property taxes on it, but they can't do anything to it without having to go through many layers of government to get multiple approvals for every step of the building process. Does anyone really believe the founding fathers would approve of this?
No Tree Ordinance is necessary. Government has nothing to say about what a person does with their property as long as they don't do anything that would be harmful to others. Leave the trees alone. Brighton used to be treeless as farmland. It has more trees today than it did in the 50's and 60's. Stop this nonsense and leave people's property rights alone. Who do you people think you are??
And Jon Stoppels wonders why he's not mayor...
Hey, kindergarten dropout, are you seriously telling me a mainstream group that protects the water you drink and the air you breath with members from both political parties is an extremist group? You are truly misinformed and brainwashed.
Are you also telling me I can do anything to my property just because I own it? I can set everything on it on fire, I can stack trash and toxic waste all over or I can fertilize my lawn with banned pesticides? Yes, the founding fathers would approve of this.
Instead of calling me names, try debating me or refuting what I said, that would be a change. Yes, I am annoying because I call you on your misinformation and lies, and that makes you guys mad, doesn’t it? Yes, I know what safe means.
Oh Mr Count me red... You are not a nice person.
Then dispute those facts for a change. That would be a welcome change, or at least try to refute them.
Post a Comment