Reply on Wychwood
Thank you (to Lucie Goulet) for her reply, however it did not address the issue.
If the 'Friends' do not seek to prevent those of lower economic means moving into Wychwood (my earlier contention), would the 'Friends of Wychwood' demonstrate this by withdrawing the clause in their submission that seeks to prevent owners from splitting their lots in accordance with the current law? Some may wish to do this and in the process offer a more affordable land purchase to someone hoping to move into this suburb.
Can Ms Goulet and others in the 'Friends' honestly claim that no tree was removed in order to establish their homes? I doubt it, so I see a hypocrisy in their desire to restrict others who might need to remove a tree to build their home.
I, like most, seek to protect the environment and appreciate the greenery and tree cover in this suburb, but does that mean that no tree can ever be removed?
In a John Stuart Mill spirit of freedom, will the "Friends" stop trying to impose on others by withdrawing their request to prevent owners selling part of their lots? Actions always speak louder than words.
Pauline Hanson
Aylmer
