Many homeowners in Surrey are retired and on fixed incomes. Some have been persuaded to have water meters put on their homes so the city can bill them accordingly for their water usage. With the rising cost of living and rising property taxes, some people can’t afford to have their water bills go up because the city wants them to water those trees.

This brings us to another issue. The trees that the city planted in front of or next to people’s houses a few years ago have now become overgrown and need to be trimmed. Some branches are only a few feet above the ground, making it difficult to mow the lawn.

The trees the city has planted are sweet gum trees, and in some neighborhoods hundreds have been planted. This type of tree drops tons of spiky seed pods onto the grass below. They wreak havoc on lawns; their superficial roots grow above the soil, making mowing difficult. Not to mention that walking barefoot on the lawn is deadly.

Most people had no say in where these trees were planted because they were planted on city land (the area between the actual property line and the roadway).

I wonder if anyone in the city has actually done any research on this species of tree. Many cities in North America now regret planting them and are in the process of removing them from their cities. These sweet gums are also on many lists of the worst trees to plant in your own yard or on city property. Surrey must have gotten a good price for purchasing these trees.

Here are my final thoughts. If the city wants these trees watered, how about they do their part and start pruning them and reimbursing households that have meters for water usage? What do you think the city would do if its residents stopped mowing the lawns of city-owned properties? The article also said that the work crews were too busy planting new trees instead of taking care of the trees in question. I really hope the newly planted trees are not sweet gums.

Michael Neubert, Surrey