HinesSight

City of Salem fails to provide good reason for Third Bridge

I asked a great question at today's DemoForum session on whether a Third Bridge is needed in Salem, Oregon. 

"Mr. Fernandez, what is the most important reason a Third Bridge is needed? Please provide facts to back up your answer."

(Questions had to be submitted in writing; this is pretty darn close to what I scribbled on a sheet of paper and gave to the forum moderator.)

The answer City of Salem Public Works director Peter Fernandez gave was direct, concise, and straightforward. 

Also... proof that a Third Bridge isn't needed, just as No Third Bridge spokesperson Scott Bassett argued at the forum.

Consider this: Fernandez is a smart guy.

Also, he's an experienced engineer. He has been intimately involved with Third Bridge planning for years. He's speaking at a forum filled with people skeptical about the project. The Mayor and several city councillors are in attendance.

Public Works Director Peter Fernandez is going to come up with the very best answer he can to my question.

I asked for the most important reason. Numero Uno. #1. The words most likely to make opponents of a Third Bridge think, "whoa, maybe we really do need this thing!"

So how did Fernandez respond?

By saying that redundancy and safety were the top reasons a Third Bridge is needed. He said that currently there is only one bridge across the Willamette River. It will be unusable after a major earthquake. Currently accidents on the bridge tie up traffic.

Sort of true.

But these are lousy reasons to spend $600 million or so on a Third Bridge. Scott Bassett explained why when he took the microphone in response to Fernandez' answer to my question.

Obviously Salem already has two bridges, or we wouldn't be talking about a Third Bridge. Fernandez' reference to one bridge probably meant that the current bridges each are four lanes going one way, westbound or eastbound. But Bassett pointed out that plans already exist for some lanes to be reversed on a bridge if an accident shuts down the other bridge.

Further, the walking/biking "pedestrian" bridge is capable of handling emergency vehicles. And there is another bridge across the Willamette in Independence, about twenty minutes away. So a $600 million Third Bridge wouldn't offer much additional redundancy.

A new bridge would, however, be much more likely to survive the 9.0 Big One earthquake which will hit western Oregon eventually. It isn't a question of "if," but of "when." The geological historical record proves that.

Bassett addressed this issue in his remarks. The current bridges need to be retrofitted. He said they were designed to remain standing after a powerful earthquake, but not to remain usable. (Of course, many roads likely won't be usable after the Big One either.)

The situation is akin to what my wife and I faced. We live in a house that was built in the early '70s, before building codes required stricter earthquake standards. Instead of buying a newer house, we spent way less to retrofit our home and garage.

Peter Fernandez' answer to my question points to the wisdom of doing the same thing with the current bridges: retrofit them; this can be done for tens of millions rather than hundreds of millions of dollars. 

Bassett discussed improvements to the road connections that could be made at the ends of the current bridges. These would take care of congestion problems -- even though tellingly, Fernandez did not mention traffic congestion in his Most Important Reason response.

Bottom line: today the City of Salem Public Works director admitted that the most important reason to build a Third Bridge isn't a very good reason. Redundancy and safety concerns with the current bridges can be resolved without constructing another bridge across the Willamette.

Watch this instructive No Third Bridge video to learn more about why Salem doesn't need a new bridge.

  

Putting parking meters in downtown Salem is a dumb idea

There are things I wish downtown Salem (Oregon) had more of: night life, throngs of people, cool shops and art galleries, vegetarian-friendly restaurants, street musicians.

Parking meters... that's something I've never wished for.

Yet the City of Salem is determined to force paid parking down downtown's throat. Why? The reason remains a mystery, like other recent ill-advised City decisions.

US Bank got an approval to cut down five large beautiful trees in downtown Salem. For no good reason. Three years ago the City's Public Works director, Peter Fernandez, made a promise to the US Bank president that the trees could be removed. 

Then flimsy reasons were conjured up in an attempt to justify the tree-killing decision. Same thing is happening with Third Bridge planning: a decision to build another bridge, which would channel people away from downtown, has been made without considering better and cheaper transportation alternatives.

Now we've got a rush by the City to install parking meters downtown. Again, with little or no consideration of whether this will solve the purported problems meters are supposed to solve; and with little or no listening to the downtown businesses that will be affected by a shift from free to paid parking.

The Downtown Parking Task Force project began hopefully enough last year. The original intent was to listen to the public first, to both the business owners and the customers. Hear them share their needs and dreams, perhaps in our Library’s auditorium, and from those conversations, develop potential strategies at open meetings.

Instead, Task Force and city staff members met at 7:30 a.m. in the library’s lower-level Anderson Room; seated in a “U” with their backs to the public they were meant to serve. As the months passed there was never an opportunity for the public to speak. 

Recently the Mayor, City Manager, members of the Parking Task Force, and other proponents of parking meters met with the Statesman Journal editorial board. I watched the entire hour-plus video of the session. I came away unconvinced that meters are needed.

Unfortunately, the Statesman Journal followed its usual policy of being on the side of whatever the City of Salem leadership and Chamber of Commerce are for, whether or not the public interest is being served. The resulting editorial, though annoyingly wishy-washy, supported moving ahead with parking meters -- even though it acknowledged that this could turn out to be a bad idea.

The Parking Task Force didn't survey downtown business owners to ask how they thought parking meters would affect them. Shameful.

Such is par for the course these days with the City of Salem. Expert advice and citizen input are ignored; the US Bank tree-killing debacle and looming Third Bridge disaster are further examples.

Read what downtown business owners and other citizens think about downtown parking meters here and here. These informed comments provide a lot of ammunition to shoot down the parking meter proposal. I have some additional skeptical bullets:

(1) Currently four large downtown businesses, such as Penney's, pay most of the parking tax that supports downtown parking garages and other parking expenses. If meters are installed, that tax goes away. This amounts to a wealth transfer to large corporations at the expense of downtown visitors. Penney's will save over $40,000 a year.

(2) Reportedly the Convention Center pays nothing for parking, yet benefits from the City parking structure right across the street. Other governmental entities apparently pay nothing for parking either. Why should big business and big government get a free parking ride?

(3) The main reason parking meters are being recommended by the Task Force is to pay for the capital and operating costs of downtown parking structures, which currently provide free parking to visitors. So why aren't parking meters planned for the structures? Why should onstreet parkers feed their meters in order to provide free parking to people who use the structures?

Now there is free onstreet parking, and free offstreet parking in the structures. If parking meters make downtown onstreet parking costly, then offstreet parkers should incur the same cost. After all, the purported purpose of the meters is to meet the cost of maintaining and operating the parking structures.

Those who use the structures should pay much or most of the costs associated with them. Logically, this seems obvious. Yet the Parking Task Force didn't recommend this. Here's my conspiracy theory about why:

In my experience as a frequent downtown visitor, the structures are more likely to be used by people heading to large businesses such as Penney's, and to the Salem Center mall. After all, skybridges connect the structures to these places.

There is no skybridge from a parking structure to the small businesses I have frequented for many years: RJ Dance Studio, Venti's, Beanery, Pacific Martial Arts, Great Harvest, etc. I use onstreet parking when I go to these small businesses, because it is much more convenient. And very rarely, if ever, have I had to park in a structure because I couldn't find an onstreet parking space.

Thus my suspicion is that the City of Salem is tilting toward large businesses, and away from small businesses, in this parking meter proposal. By using onstreet meter revenue to subsidize free parking in the structures, Penney's, Salem Center, and the Convention Center will continue to have free parking easily available to their customers -- while not having to pay any parking tax. 

Yet it is small businesses that make downtown Salem as attractive as it is. And it is small businesses which should be supported by City of Salem policies. Downtown Salem is on the edge of being vibrantly ascendent. It also is on the edge of sliding downhill.

Which side downtown moves toward will be affected by how attractive the area is to visitors, and thus to businesses. 

Already the City has authorized the killing of five beautiful trees that used to grace downtown's State Street. And the City is determined to build a Third Bridge that would funnel people away from downtown toward Keizer Station and points north.

Now the City wants to install parking meters, which means large businesses wouldn't have to pay their fair share, or indeed any share, of downtown parking costs. I'm not saying the City of Salem hates downtown small businesses. But I can understand why someone would come to that conclusion.

Don't elect Planned Parenthood haters to Salem-Keizer School Board

If you're a Salem-area resident who cares about providing the best education possible for our children, in the May 21 election be sure to vote for Cris Brantley, Nancy MacMoriss-Adix, and Rick Kimball.

They're running for the Salem-Keizer school board. Each is in favor of the district's Teen Outreach Program, TOP -- which is demonstrably effective:

TOP CURRICULUM
The TOP Changing Scenes Curriculum addresses many important teen topics, including:
  • Healthy relationships
  • Values
  • Communication
  • Examining influences
  • Goal setting
  • Decision making
  • Adolescent development and sexual health
  • Community service

TOP IS EFFECTIVE
TOP has demonstrated the following results:
    •  53% reduction in the risk of teen pregnancy or fathering a child
    •  52% reduction in the risk of school suspension
    •  60% reduction in the risk of course failure

I can't understand why anyone would be in favor of more teen pregnancies, school suspensions, and course failures. But some people (including write-in candidates) running for the Salem-Keizer school board are.

That's why it is important to vote for Brantley, MacMoriss-Adiz, and Kimball. Be sure to deposit your ballot at a drop site, because it is too late to mail your ballot and be sure it will arrive by May 21.

As reported by the Salem Statesman-Journal:

The health program is funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It is taught by a school district teacher with help from a Planned Parenthood facilitator.

But those who hate Planned Parenthood, an organization that is highly effective in reducing both unwanted pregnancies and abortions through education about responsible sexual behavior and birth control, have falsely claimed that Planned Parenthood is "teaching health classes."

Anyone who doesn't respect truth shouldn't be on a school board.

Elect Cris Brantley, Nancy MacMoriss-Adix, and Rick Kimball. They care about educating children, not about pushing their own extreme political agenda and lies about the TOP program.

My culinary connection with Bollywood

Oh, yeah. I'm almost a Bollywood star. 

Defining almost to mean... 

Someone who caused Shahid Kapoor, a Bollywood star, to become a vegetarian. Since what Kapoor eats is what makes him up, and I changed what he eats, ergo: I'm almost a Bollywood star.

(If you don't think too much about the logic of that last sentence.)

Read all about me!

Here's my bro, Shahid, looking cool and doing his dance thing. We vegetarians have got it going on, for sure.

 

My Salem Weekly opinion piece about US Bank tree killings

I only had one request to make of the Salem Weekly editors: if you have to shorten my opinion piece about the City of Salem's outrageous approval of a US Bank request to cut down five beautiful Zelkova trees, please...

Don't take out my references to Tony Soprano and the Bada Bing Club. Pretty please. With New Jersey mobster frosting on top.

Happily, they didn't. "A promise is a promise" was published almost exactly as I wrote it. Here's the first Soprano's reference.

There was no good reason to remove the trees. None. Three times the city’s Shade Tree Committee recommended pruning them, not killing them. Salem’s urban forester agreed. So did independent arborists. Neighboring business owners wanted the five trees saved.

So why did Public Works director Peter Fernandez approve US Bank regional president Alan Allbritton’s application to have the trees removed? Here’s where the story starts to sound more like the New Jersey of Tony Soprano than supposedly squeaky-clean Salem.

Now, I want to assure Peter Fernandez and Alan Allbritton that I don't believe they are engaged in truly nefarious dealings. Some hyperbole and exaggeration is par for the course in most sorts of writing. 

But mildly nefarious? Sure. 

When I've described what happened here in Salem to people unacquainted with our city, the reaction has been "Wow, the tree cutting sounds so sleazy." 

My point exactly. 

Peter Fernandez ignored the thrice-repeated recommendation of the Shade Tree committee. Admitting that US Bank’s sidewalk liability concerns weren’t pertinent to his decision, he conjured up some pitifully weak reasons to cut down the trees. Each reason screamed “prune” to arborists, not kill.

Then the City of Salem sent a letter to tree removal opponents notifying them of Fernandez’ approval. Outrageously, it arrived on the very day of the appeal deadline. An attorney has told me that opponents had grounds to appeal. But its damn tough to appeal a City of Salem decision when you’re notified about it too late to legally do so.

In the grand scheme of things it could be argued that cutting down healthy large trees for no good reason doesn't rank very high on the scale of Outrageous Acts.

That may be.

However, this episode is a window that provides a view into how the current leadership of the City of Salem -- mayor, city manager, department heads, councilors -- go about making public policy decisions.

How much do they value citizen testimony? To what extent do they pay attention to facts and expert advice? Do special interests have more sway than the broad public interest? Are "political" decisions made first, with reasons drummed up later?

Time will offer up better answers to these questions.

Debate over a Third Bridge and downtown parking meters is continuing, and will heat up. How the City handles these issues will tell us a lot about whether Tony Soprano-style deal-making is taking hold in Salem.

Salem's Third Bridge planning staggers on to likely demise

If I was a betting man -- and Vegas placed odds on ill-advised city public works projects -- I'd put money on the City of Salem's Third Bridge project going down in well-deserved flames.

I wasn't able to attend last night's City Council hearing on the project. But thanks to a hot-off-the-blog post from Salem Breakfast on Bikes, I got a good feel for the increasing desperation of Third Bridge proponents.

With opposition increasing by the day, it's telling that Public Works director Peter Fernandez now is calling the latest iteration of the bridge/quasi-freeway design, the "Salem Alternative." Sounds like the $100,000 a month planning team is trying to earn its keep.

I'll admit that Salem Alternative has a better ring to it than 4-D, or whatever the heck the previous preferred design was called.

(If they'd called it 44-D, maybe at least the Third Bridge would have gotten a thumbs-up from subscribers to Big Boobs magazine; so far the vast majority of Salem-area residents appear to be saying No! to this $700 million waste of taxpayer money.)

But no matter what the Third Bridge is called, some plain facts remain: it isn't needed; it isn't wanted; and it can't be afforded. 

Statesman Journal editorial about 3rd Bridge "not even wrong"

Ooh! Here comes my theoretical physics-based putdown: "You're not even wrong!" Take that, Statesman Journal editorial board. 

Today's opinion piece about a proposed Third Bridge in Salem was so confusingly argued, it deserves the "not even wrong" -- a phrase attributed to physicist Wolfgang Pauli when he objected to incorrect or sloppy thinking.

Here's how I put it in my online comment on the editorial, "Third Bridge Remains a Sound Project."

The SJ says the bridge "remains a sound concept." Yet the SJ editorial admits ...

-- It won't be built for 15-20 years.
-- No one knows if it will be needed then.
-- No one knows if it will be wanted then.
-- No one knows if it can be afforded then.

Yet somehow something that is questionably needed, wanted, and afforded is a "sound concept"? This reflects a basic problem with how the Salem establishment (City Council, Statesman Journal, Chamber of Commerce) views the world.

A desired future for Salem is lacking. The public isn't involved in forming a coherent, consensual, community vision for the sort of place we want to become. Instead, we get more of the same -- reactive disjointed planning that responds to short-term "political" pressures (using that term in a broad sense) rather than long-term aspirations.

Playing into this, the editorial urges Salem to pursue a Third Bridge that isn't needed now, isn't wanted now, and can't be afforded now, yet maybe, perhaps, just might be, in 15-20 years -- for reasons unknown and unspecified. 

Instead of saying "THIS is the Salem we want to become, and THIS is why the Third Bridge is needed to help make that happen," advocates of the Salem River Crossing rely on vague assumptions about what might occur a few decades from now, hoping that somehow current plans for an unneeded, unwanted, unaffordable bridge will meld with an unknowable future.

Here's an alternative idea: form that future, rather than react to it. Listen to what Salem area residents want. Do we want a strong downtown, alternatives to automotive travel, thriving businesses and residences in walkable communities along the river? 

Decide what sort of place we want Salem to be, then, if necessary, design a river crossing that will enhance that vision.

I wrote those thoughts before coming across a Salem Breakfast on Bikes post along the same lines. Here's some excerpts from "SJ Fails to Take Own Advice: Whiffs on Third Bridge."

From an earlier note yesterday [by SJ editorial page editor Dick Hughes] on assault and reporting at Willamette:

But that also was a lesson for student journalists: To be effective, they can't just spout off. They have to back up opinions with evidence and they have to present all sides of an issue.

Instead of talking right over "objections to the project" and dismissing them by fiat and circular logic -"the bridge is needed" because we need a bridge! - the SJ refuses its own advice to "back up opinions with evidence" and "present all sides of an issue." 

(At least they did publish a counter-point from 1000 Friends just below the editorial, but is significant they did not hold one of those "editorial board" lunchtime meetings with critics and with supporters.  It's hard to see that the SJ has taken strong measures on both the reporting and the editorial side to investigate the project thoroughly.)

...WESD [Willamette Educational Service District] and Courthouse Square have got tons of reportorial resources applied to them.  The proposed giant bridge and highway is in cost more than an order of magnitude greater, hundreds of millions rather than tens of millions. 

By this calculation it is reasonable to ask whether 10x the staff time should be allocated to investigating claims and intellectual honesty in the DEIS [draft Environmental Impact Statement] about the giant bridge and highway!  The case is far from proved, and the SJ has an actual job to do in "backing up opinions with evidence" on a once-in-a-generation sized project.

Maybe most crucially, it is far from proven that Salem has done all it could do.

I'm sure there are good arguments to be made for building a Third Bridge. But I haven't seen them yet, and the Statesman Journal editorial didn't make any. 

A trend is evident when the SJ expresses its newpaper'ish collective opinion on important issues: the editorial board takes a position, but not a stand. This deserves the insult, "not even wrong." (See my post about the SJ's endorsement of Mitt Romney in 2012; also "not even wrong.")

Why? Because someone who is open and straightforward in arguing for a position either can convince others that she is right, or can be convinced that she is wrong -- since arguments based on facts and reasons can be rebutted.

The Statesman Journal's shaky "position" on the Third Bridge is that it's worth continuing to look into the possibility of another bridge across the Willamette, because maybe, someday, perhaps 20 years from now, it might be needed, wanted, and affordable. 

Though none of those things is true now. 

The SJ's maybe, someday attitude is at odds with the Third Bridge timetable on the Oregon Department of Transportation web site. Looks to me like a final decision is scheduled for mid-2014, with design and construction happening immediately after. 

As some commenters on the editorial said, given the importance of this issue the newpaper's editorial board should have sat down with proponents and opponents of a Third Bridge. Let each side make its best case. Assess the facts. Ponder alternative futures for downtown, west Salem, and other parts of Salem.

Then write a firm, factual, reasonable editorial that doesn't pussyfoot around.

Should Salem design, build, and pay for a Third Bridge, or not? Explain why the Statesman Journal came down on the side that it did. Then people can debate how valid those reasons were, and how accurate the facts backing up those reasons were.

Instead, readers of the Statesman Journal were given an editorial so wishy-washy it wasn't even wrong. Because being right or wrong means taking a coherent position on some subject, and the SJ didn't do that.

GOP efforts to politicize Benghazi result in... nothing new

Yawn. That's the right reaction to the unceasing efforts by Fox News commentators and other Republicans to convert the Benghazi tragedy into some sort of impeachable offense.

Isn't working. Recent GOP hearings have told us what we already knew.

Politicians love few things better than a scandal to trip up their opponents, and Republicans hope last year’s fatal attack on U.S. diplomats in Libya will do exactly that to Hillary Rodham Clinton and other Democrats.

History suggests it might be a tough lift. The issue is complex, the next presidential election is more than three years away, and a number of reports and officials have disputed criticisms of Clinton’s role when she was secretary of state.

...A major independent inquiry largely absolved Clinton of wrongdoing.

The findings incensed many Republican leaders and conservative news outlets, who portray Benghazi as a simmering scandal about to erupt.

The three officials testifying Wednesday offered little that has not been aired in previous congressional hearings. Afterward, Republicans all but acknowledged they’re still seeking a knockout punch.

...On Wednesday, Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin showed little concern about the larger impact on politics. ‘‘I don’t think there’s a smoking gun today,’’ he told the House panel. "I don’t think there’s a lukewarm slingshot."

Nice metaphor: the trailer for the hearings promised a lot more than the actual "movie" delivered.

The pretense was, of course, that this is all about national security and a dastardly Obama campaign electioneering scheme followed by a coverup. The problem, to mix entertainment media for a moment, is that the trailer for the hearing, as is so often the case, promised to deliver a lot more than we ultimately got.

Days ahead of time we'd been told the then-deputy chief of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, Gregory Hicks, would blow the whistle on the allegedly feckless response to the attack. Foxaganda, CBS and other media reported Hicks was furious that no jet fighters had been scrambled to fly over Benghazi to make the attackers of the U.S. consulate and CIA Annex there wet their pants and flee.

And he also was incensed about the military's order to Special Operations soldiers to "stand down" rather than get on a flight from Tripoli to Benghazi where they would reinforce the CIA operatives and Libyan militia fighting the attackers.

But well before he sat down in front the microphone, Hicks knew the answer for why the jets hadn't been scrambled: They couldn't have gotten there in time, something examined in full by the Accountability Review Board's independent report.

As for the Special Operations guys, they weren't some fully outfitted Delta Force unit ready to obliterate the men who had dared attack American facilities. They were just four guys in all, no doubt brave and eager to go. But they weren't combat ready, being armed solely with 9mm sidearms. If they had left on the plane for Benghazi, they would have arrived too late to save any lives.

It's impossible to believe that Hicks wasn't, eight months after the fact, fully aware of the reason those four weren't sent.

Meanwhile... carbon dioxide levels surpass 400 ppm. But this doesn't require hearings, according to Republicans. Because Benghazi.

The best available evidence suggests the amount of the gas in the air has not been this high for at least three million years, before humans evolved, and scientists believe the rise portends large changes in the climate and the level of the sea.

“It symbolizes that so far we have failed miserably in tackling this problem,” said Pieter P. Tans, who runs the monitoring program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that reported the new reading.

Ellis Island respects large trees more than US Bank & City of Salem do

Having noticed my series of outraged posts about the utterly needless approval by the City of Salem of a US Bank request to remove five large trees in front of the bank building in downtown Salem, recently someone sent me a photo of the Ellis Island National Monument in Upper New York Bay.

The photo was found via Google Maps. Since it was rather blurry, here's a similar photo I found on Google Images.

Do you see all of the large, leafy, beautiful trees in front of historic buildings?

If Ellis Island was transported into downtown Salem and transformed into a US Bank branch, bank president Alan Allbritton would have asked to have them cut them down. And City of Salem Public Works director would have allowed this, even though the City's Shade Tree Committee and expert arborists would have advised otherwise.

Thankfully, the federal government has more sense than the City of Salem and US Bank. Plus, there aren't any political shenanigans Involved with the Ellis Island trees. 

US Bank claimed that five beautiful Japanese Zelkova trees needed to be killed because they cut off sightlines to a building in Salem's Historic District. However, nothing in Salem's tree ordinance (Chapter 86) talks about criteria for removing trees there -- only planting trees there.

So Fernandez and Allbritton made stuff up to get around the plain fact that there was no good reason, none at all, to cut down the trees. They also seemingly lost the ability to understand simple English, such as the familiar word "prune." 

(The thrice-repeated recommendation of the Shade Tree Committee, should any problems with the size of the trees be apparent.)

I took this photo before three of the five Zelkovas were cut down.

This was an unjustified murder of three innocent trees. Hopefully more innocent blood sap won't be shed from the remaining two trees, saved from the initial slaughter by baby birds sheltering in their branches.

Historic buildings can coexist with beautiful large trees. There are plenty of examples of this elsewhere in downtown Salem, as on Ellis Island. Unfortunately, politics trumped sound decision-making in this case. 

Arborist demolishes City of Salem's reasons for removing US Bank trees

I've said it many times before, and I'll likely be saying it many times more:

There was no good reason for the City of Salem (Oregon) to approve a request by US Bank to remove five healthy, beautiful, large Japanese Zelkova trees.

All signs point to the decision being politically motivated. That's shameful. Being an avid fan of The Sopranos, I would expect decisions by local officials in New Jersey to be politically slanted. But here in Oregon we expect cleaner city government.

Below you'll find the expert views of Woody Dukes, an arborist for 39 years, 25 with the City of Salem.

Woody testified at the January 9 meeting of the City's Shade Tree Committee, which three times -- three -- recommended that the Zelkovas be pruned rather than removed. Yet Peter Fernandez, City of Salem Public Works director, somehow granted US Bank regional president Alan Allbritton's removal request.

Allbritton is the incoming president of the Salem Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber of Commerce is a big backer of the City of Salem's crusade to spend $600-800 million on a Third Bridge across the Willamette which hardly anyone other than the Chamber and Realtor's Association believes is needed.

In 2010 Fernandez promised Allbritton that the five US Bank Trees would be removed, even though Allbritton hadn't gone through the prescribed application process. 

After Allbritton did, and tree experts (along with the Shade Tree Committee) said "prune, don't kill," Fernandez kept his promise to the US Bank President -- while breaking any promise he may have made upon taking office to put facts and the public interest above special interests. 

Here's some information from long-time city arborist Woody Dukes which will strengthen the suspicions of so many tree and bird lovers that the City of Salem and US Bank had no good reason to cut down the trees.

Two remain. They need to stay. Nothing will bring back the three trees which have been killed. Saving the last two trees may restore some measure of good will toward City officials and US Bank. 

---------------------------
Excerpts from an email message arborist Woody Dukes sent me:

Hi Brian. I went through the Shade Tree Advisory Committee minutes from the Jan 9, 2013 hearing at Pringle Hall with regard to the Ladd & Bush Bank request to remove the Zelcovas on the State St side of their building.

I also went through the "Background, Findings and Decision regarding the removal of the State Street Trees (302 State Street S: Ladd & Bush Building—US Bank) from March 12, 2013 that came from Peter Fernandez, Director of Public Works for the City of Salem [quoted in red, along with Allbritton quotes].

Here is what I gleaned out of them:

From Peter Fernandez in his "Findings" on March 12, 2013:

"1. Aesthetics. There is a difference of opinion between the tree removal proponents and opponents as to the aesthetic quality of the trees. One faction believes that the mature trees provide a visual appeal. The other believes that the difference in size between the Commercial and State Street trees creates a poor aesthetic."

The City allowed the trees on the Commercial St side to be removed. The differences in sizes directly relates to the removal of those trees, not the remaining ones on State although that is now the case.  

"While the aesthetics of mature trees may be debated, the record indicates that “the [zelkova] trees have grown beyond their anticipated design."

How do they know that these trees have grown beyond the anticipated design? I was told by Wilbur Bluhm, one of the committee members that decided on the locations and genus/species of trees to be planted in this program that these Zelkovas were chosen specifically for the bank. He is one of the most respected horticulturalists in the area if not even broader recognition. He was a consultant for the "Sunset Western Garden Book".

(Also Professor Emeritus, Oregon State University Extension Service, and Horticultural Consultant, Board Member, Rhododendron Species Foundation, member of the Native Plant Society and teaches Horticulture part time at Chemeketa Community College.)

"3. Additional maintenance requirements due to leaves and roots. The proponents of removing the trees state that the existing trees create additional maintenance requirements due to dropping leaves in the fall and root encroachment into the stormwater drainage facilities. Any deciduous tree planted in the public right of way, by definition, will create leaf litter in the fall." 

The City accepts this basic issue with all trees.

"The record indicates, however, that the Princeton Sentry Ginko trees planted on Commercial Street drop their leaves in a more concentrated manner than the existing Japanese Zelkova trees. ... The record also indicates that staff believes that at least one of the Zelkova trees may, in fact, be impacting the stormwater drainage facilities at this location."

Why not remove all trees and plant Princeton Sentry Ginkgo trees if this particular leaf-drop problem is 'corrected' by such replacement? Does this mean that any and all future tree removals in the downtown core (and elsewhere) will be replaced by these ginkgo trees?

Has it been proven "in fact" that stormwater drainage facilities have been impacted by the tree(s)? What impact? What is the plan to correct this impact after removal of the offending tree(s)? In FACT, there are NO storm drains on the State Street side of the bank.

Are they saying here that the possible impact is to below-ground infrastructure? Can we see in writing what this impact consists of? 

If trees are going to be removed, the reasons must be concrete and the tangible damage be shown both in writing and with visual evidence of said damage incurred with proof that the tree(s) is/are all or in part responsible. Permits for any action should not be issued on such 'loose' or speculative language.

---------------------

From Ryan Allbritton's testimony at the Jan 9th STAC hearing:

"Three years ago they had requested all trees on Commercial Street and State Street (adjacent to the bank) be removed and were told by the City officials to hold off on the State St side for two reasons; one being an issue in the community of having all nine trees taken out at once and that future curb work on State Street would require the removal of the remaining trees. The City replaced the curb along Commercial Street and then replanted small trees. The bank was told they could do half the tree removal now (i.e. 2010) and could do the other half in two years (i.e. 2012)." 

The bank, as they stated in their testimony on Jan 9th before the Shade Tree Advisory Committee, said that they "had a deal". From what is written here, it seems to me that there was a "deal" and that Fernandez's decision on March 12th 2013 was actually made in 2010.

[boldface emphasis added by me, because this shameful seeming fact needs to be emphasized]

"They [US Bank] are now asking the City through the STAC's recommendation to let them replace the trees that are on the North side of the building in fulfillment of the agreement they have with the City [in 2010]. The curb on that side has been worked on but is not complete and they state the city will need to remove them to fix the curb; it causes a liability to their customers and the citizens as a whole."

The City has already performed the work of replacing the curb without any major issues with tree roots AND without removing the trees.

From Brian Hines' piece quoting Peter Fernandez in his decision to issue the permit:

Fernandez says sidewalk liability concerns are “not pertinent to the tree removal decision." Yet US Bank officials have been telling people that the trees needed to be cut down for this reason.

I believe that Fernandez should have taken the advice of the STAC [Shade Tree Advisory Committee] and had the trees pruned.

They probably would be improperly pruned by removing more than the recommended maximum of leaf removal of 25% each year because they would have been raised all around, reduced in height by some unknown amount and pruned back from the building. Then, if the work performed was not satisfactory, the bank should have been allowed another appeal to (try and) press their case again.