Exactly. This is my point. Suffice it to say, if the option to deliberately leave sufficient space for this tree (and for the tree that eventually replaces it when this tree dies or gets struck by lightning or otherwise needs to be taken down) is off the table right out of the gate then we probably don't really care all that much about the tree and its presence, etc.
Do you think if the developer came up with an idea of notching out the building to accomodate the tree in exchange for a penthouse level that anyone would support it? The project has to be economically viable otherwise it doesn't get developed.
On my property I cut down gary oaks, arbutus, etc., all legally because I simple designed my house on top of the trees and when inside building envelope and you don't need re-zoning not much anyone can do nor did any of my neighbours complain. Here the developer needs something (a rezoning) and all of a sudden this is the last garry oak standing. Funny part is it even isn't on his or her property. If the tree means so much the coop should buy the property off the developer and just rent it out.
Notice how their website is called "stop the quest," not "save the tree."
Edited by MarkoJ, 05 September 2017 - 11:36 AM.