Everybody seems to agree that trees are good, but the best way to get more of them has proven contentious.

Debate around Burlington’s citywide private tree bylaw resulted in strong stances on both sides of the issue from members of the public and councillors themselves. In a five-to-two vote on Dec. 16, council approved the implementation of the bylaw, which would add new legal protections for larger trees on private property.

Supporters hailed the bylaw as a key step to fighting climate change, increasing the local tree canopy and bringing the city up-to-date with nearby municipalities like Oakville, which already have similar rules. Opponents said the bylaw infringed on personal property rights, would actually reduce the tree canopy and a more productive move would be to instead create a tree planting incentive program.

Amy Schnurr, the executive director with Burlington Green, said the bylaw is an essential part of a larger program to increase trees in the city.

“For taxpayers, and particularly for those of us who plant a lot of trees, can you imagine the wasted effort planting all the trees we’ve planted and continue to plant knowing they can simply be cut down? There’s nothing to protect that investment in the future, thus you need that integrated approach to protect, as well as tree planting,” said Schnurr.

On the other side of the debate were a number of property owners who argued the bylaw would add unnecessary punitive costs on both taxpayers and the citizens who wanted to remove an unwanted tree from their own property.

Some said the bylaw could have the opposite effect as intended as people would remove trees prior to the implementation of the bylaw and would further avoid planting trees in fear that they could become subject to the bylaw.

Coun. Paul Sharman took a strong stance against the bylaw, saying it wasn’t based on thorough enough research and would result in harsh penalties to residents.

“The city’s going to extort huge sums of money to satisfy an idealistic fantasy. I cannot support this decision that council is about to make in the complete absence of evidence,” said Sharman. “This bylaw is rushed and ill conceived.”

Specifically, he said they didn’t wait for the completion of the Roseland Pilot Project before moving ahead and they didn’t get a forestry management plan or even look to see if the built area of the city could sustain a significantly bigger tree canopy.