We've seen a succession of arborists come and go next door having been called in for consultations and information respecting the cost of removal of mature trees from the front and back of our near neighbours' property.

When these houses that are now 25 years old were built, the municipality had an agreement with the builder that on each property an approved tree species would be planted to ensure some kind of uniformity with respect to quality of life, with the atmosphere-scrubbing capabilities of mature trees giving us cleaner air to breathe, shade in the summer, winter protection against wind hitting the houses, and snow buildup. And of course there is the aesthetic value of seeing mature trees on lawns in front of houses.

People had a choice of approved trees, and the builder had them planted when the construction was completed. Our house was built as an experimental model three years later, the lot left vacant for that purpose. So when we moved in others had been in residence on the street for three years before us. When we bought the house it wasn't yet fully completed, and we had a choice of various interior finishes. But not the tree that was planted; it was a pine. Since we love trees and evergreens express the natural bounty of Canada's forests, we were pleased.

Over the years it has grown mightily, and we've discovered just how messy a pine can be, incessantly throwing down needles, and in drought years sending its roots closer to the surface to look for water, both conditions inimical to good grass growth. We still appreciate that tree, nonetheless, and it has been incorporated into our garden plan very nicely.

Our neighbours had less luck with theirs, having lost a major limb during the great ice storm, and the tree seemed never to have fully recovered; it appears it is hollow, and there are great sections of it verging on complete extinction. As far as 'natural selection' is concerned, it wasn't favoured. That tree was evaluated as dispensable by need. And another tree planted too close beside it is a soft maple which, the arborists informed our neighbours, has already sent its roots over to the foundation of their house.

In their backyard, a large spruce that overhangs our backyard, planted much to close to the property line and which plagued us this spring with the detritus it rained down which Jack and Jill took to eating and tracking back with them into the house, is also scheduled for removal. Beside it, also too close, is a crabapple, a glory of a tree in spring, but a headache for clean-up chores the rest of the summer, according to our neighbour, and it will also be taken down.

It's always a shame to see trees removed, but it's also surprising the number of now-mature trees that people on this street have contracted to have removed for one reason or another. A costly deliberation, but one that presumably frees up space for gardens and lush lawns, although both are elusive on this street.

Across from us three houses in succession have large, mature ash trees dating to their original placement, and all of them have succumbed to the ash-borer devastation, as well as another directly across the street from those. Even though one of the residents shelled out big bucks to have his treated last year in the hope it could be saved.