Trees not a good plan for historic green space
I am writing concerning the proposed Carbon Sequestration Reforestation Plan in St. John’s. I am a resident of the Larch Park area, where it was originally proposed to place trees in Larch Park, as well as in the green space by Rennie’s Mill Road and in the Elks Club Park.
The current proposed areas by Rennie’s Mill Road and the Elks Club Park are common sliding hills for children of all ages in the winter and have been for decades — a commonly known fact to those who live in this area of town.
A photo of the 1928 opening of the Rennie’s River swimming pool depicts the same view of the river we have today. The view of Rennie’s River from Rennie’s Mill Road is an historic view that has been around since the 1800s.
It seems ironic that 100-year-old trees were so willingly cut around the Colonial Building to restore it to its original state, but the city is prepared to maim this historical view of the city with newly planted trees.
While I support the general principle of urban forests and tree planting, the lack of consultation surrounding the placement of these trees has been extremely disappointing.
Upon hearing about the plan, a group of neighbours in our area worked very hard to collect feedback from park users and those living in the area — a task that should have been completed by your staff before releasing this plan in the first place — only to have Larch Park completely removed from the reforestation plan altogether, with continued plans to wreak havoc on the sliding hills.
We were told by Coun. Ian Froude that the goal was to have trees placed in “unused areas of the park.”
I am wondering how the city would have accurate information without any consultation with residents and park users, when city staff usually do park maintenance during work hours when the park is least used?
Generally, it seems that many would be in favour of having trees planted by the tennis courts to provide a wind barrier, and along that section of the gravel trail, without blocking the stairs to the park.
I also find the general devaluing of open green spaces, emphasized in a city news release on May 19, paints an upsetting and inaccurate picture that they are a waste of money and investment.
To quote Mayor Danny Breen, not having them “reduces the need for turf maintenance … which reduces our fossil fuel use, saving greenhouse gas emissions and financial resources.” (City staff have not mowed the hills on Rennie’s Mill Road for years. Exactly what are you planning
to save?)
To me, this insinuates that grassy areas are wasted spaces, money vacuums, and a hassle to maintain.
Living through a pandemic caused by a virus spread primarily by respiratory droplets has highlighted the importance of space for residents to participate in outdoor recreational activity. There are green spaces in this plan that appear to be fully filled in with trees — Torbay Road to Toronto Street, and Quebec Street, for example.
If you fill in the open green spaces in these areas, where will people in these areas participate in recreational activities that require open space, such as soccer, football and frisbee?
Will they drive to another green space, creating more greenhouse gas emissions? While good in principle, the Carbon Sequestration Plan lacks input from those whose neighbourhoods will be affected by the implementation of the plan and could create obstacles to outdoor recreational sport for those in neighbourhoods whose open green spaces will be filled in with trees.
We need more public feedback before implementing the planting of these trees. Kathryn Bautista St. John’s