HinesSight

Marijuana is legal in Oregon at midnight. Praise us baby boomers!

In honor of marijuana getting to put on the July 1 glass slipper of legalization at midnight, I feel like sharing my Ex-Hippie Flower Child Top Tip on Using Psychedelic Drugs, of which cannabis/marijuana is one.

In typical baby-boomer fashion, I also will share a previous blog post where I persuasively argued why my generation, the Me Generation, deserves to soon have a big fat doobie raised to us by legally stoned Oregonians.

But first, the tip...

Back in the 60's, when anything seemed possible if people would only alter their screwed-up straight consciousness through psychedelics, Timothy Leary spoke of set and setting:

Of course, the drug dose does not produce the transcendent experience. It merely acts as a chemical key — it opens the mind, frees the nervous system of its ordinary patterns and structures. The nature of the experience depends almost entirely on set and setting.

Set denotes the preparation of the individual, including his personality structure and his mood at the time. Setting is physical — the weather, the room's atmosphere; social — feelings of persons present towards one another; and cultural — prevailing views as to what is real.

Often I hear politicians say stuff like, "I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana, but I'm not saying people should use it." 

Well, I am. You should try marijuana if you haven't before. Like Leary said: open your mind, free your nervous system of ordinary patterns.

Your mind/brain is altered by all kinds of chemicals, notably including those produced by the human body itself. In addition, so many other things are chemical keys: caffeine, alcohol, chocolate, love, sex, exercise, tobacco, hugs, patting a dog or cat.

Marijuana is just another way to jump-start an alteration in one's consciousness.

Sure, maybe you could meditate for thirty years on a hard cushion for several hours a day and get the same uplifting results. Or you can put some crushed marijuana buds in a vaporizer, turn it on, wait a minute, take a few puffs, and voila! -- you've altered your consciousness via an herb.

In a positive way. Believe that, because it is true.

This is the "set" part of set and setting, understanding that your expectations about using marijuana or any other psychedelic are going to affect your experience. 

Here's how I see the situation.

There is no Real You (or Real Me). When we use marijuana, we aren't moving away from some supposed Really Real Reality. We're just altering our consciousness, as we would by drinking a few beers, meditating, taking LSD, or engaging in hot sex. 

So don't worry about losing control of yourself when you ingest marijuana, if you've never tried cannabis before.

First, you don't have a solid stable self. Meaning, there is no constancy to you. You are ever-changing, as everything alive is. Second, consider that the part of you which wants to keep control is the same part which excessively worries and frets, rather than flowing freely with life.

Maybe the high-on-marijuana you is the better you, the you that you'd prefer being all the time. I'm not saying it is. That's for you to decide. Experiment with freeing your mind. Cannabis is way better than alcohol for accomplishing that. 

If you don't have access to marijuana now, it looks like it will be sold to recreational users in Oregon medical marijuana stores after October 1.

And now, a reprise of my August 2014 blog post, "Oregonians, please legalize marijuana to honor...ME!"

Hey, so maybe the title of this blog post sounds self-centered to you. What do you expect, dude? The author, moi, is a 65 year-old baby boomer. I'm proudly part of the Me Generation. 

So naturally I see everything as revolving around the Flower Child center of the universe that we baby boomers brought into being back in the 60's. 

Me especially, since I was in college at San Jose State University from 1966 to 1971.

You know, the Bay Area not-Stanford and not-UC Berkeley. The ugly duckling to the south. Which for me and my friends was just a short 57' VW bug smoke-filled drive away from San Francisco: Haight-Ashbury, Winterland, Fillmore, all things psychedelically bright and beautiful.

We weren't smoking cigarettes.

Oh no, we were the freaks, the hippies, the potheads, the stoners, who brought marijuana out of the societal shadows and made it, if not respectable, damn ubiquitous for our generation.

In a sense -- and I can understand if you'd like to make that "In a pitifully marginal sense" -- we were akin to the courageous demonstrators of the Civil Rights movement, the determined feminists of the Women's Rights movement, the brave initiators of the Gay Rights movement, the in-your-face protestors of the Anti-Vietnam War movement.

We set out to change society one toke at a time.

Whether zoning out to Cream, Jefferson Airplane, and Hendrix, or demonstrating that frisbee skills are not lessened one bit by being high (nor driving skills, in my experience), we were unknowingly laying the groundwork for what now seems to be a groundswell of support for changing this nation's marijuana laws.

Including right here in Oregon, this November. New Approach Oregon is going a great job with its initiative to legalize recreational use of marijuana by those 21 and over.

Enough signatures have been gathered to get on the ballot. Fund-raising seems to be going well. Endorsements are streaming in -- such as from the Oregon State Council for Retired Citizens, Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. Also, the Northwest Oregon Labor Council.

Still, we can't take it for granted that the legalization initiative will pass.

So do what you can to help New Approach Oregon. Make a donation.  Add your name to their list of supporters. Most importantly, vote for the initiative in November if you live in Oregon.

Remember: this is about ME. And my generation. We're getting old. No, geez, we are old.

We deserve the honor that we'll bestow upon ourselves when weed is legalized, state by state. We'll be able to tell our grandchildren...

"Honey, when you grow up your grandpappy made it possible for you to enjoy pot without fear of the law -- a far cry from how it was in the olden times. Why, did I ever tell you..."

"Mom, MOM! Come quick! Make Grandpa Brian stop talking about his drug days. I'm afraid he's going to make me listen to his LSD stories AGAIN!"

And why not, grandchild? I was Jesus personified back in the 60's (outwardly at least). Am I not entitled to retell the gospel of my exploits with cannabis and other mind-altering substances?

In the case of marijuana, at least, a substance that cries out for sensible legalization, as ably detailed in a recent series of New York Times editorials. This shows that the times are indeed a'changing when it comes to legalizing pot. 

Which is estimated to bring in $38 million each year in taxes to benefit Oregon's schools, police, drug treatment, drug prevention and mental health programs.

A great reason, among many, to legalize marijuana. Let's just keep in mind this central reason: to honor the greatest (pot-smoking) generation, us baby boomers.  

 

Anti and pro Joe Arpaio rallies showed two sides of Salem

OK, let's leave aside the politics of immigration reform (including the lack thereof, so far).

What I found most fascinating about the twin Sheriff Joe Arpaio rallies at the Capitol yesterday -- a pro-rally on the Capitol steps, and a counter anti-rally right across the street -- was the differing "vibes" of each.

 

A video I made from my iPhone footage focuses on the counter rally, where I spent most of my time.

Now, I realize that some of the people at each rally were from out of town. But many, perhaps most, were from the Salem area. I recognized a lot of folks at the counter rally. 

So during the 70 minutes or so I spent on Court Street watching the goings-on, I was struck by how the two sides of the street seemed to epitomize two sides of Salem -- along with Oregon, the United States, and even the world.

(I took most of the photos below soon after I arrived at the rallies; though the crowds were smaller than later on, the atmosphere at each rally didn't change.)

The pro-Arpaio rally was mostly populated with middle- to older-aged white folks. They seemed to view things quite seriously. When I walked around on the Capitol steps taking photos, I didn't feel very comfortable.

Of course, I'd come from the other side of the street.

American flags were much in evidence on both sides of Court. But there was something off-putting about how the pro-Arpaio people used the flag. Not as a symbol of coming together. Of keeping unwanted people out.

Sheriff Arpaio, of Phoenix, has been found guilty of racial profiling and his jails have been ruled unconstitutional. So he isn't exactly a warm and fuzzy guy, nor would I expect his admirers to be.

The Oregon Republican Party booth displayed Arpaio's famous pink underwear, which he mandated be issued to all prisoners.

Maybe it was my longish gray hair, or my bright neon-green shirt, or the orange folding bike I was wheeling along, but for some reason I wasn't beckoned over and urged to join the GOP. Again, the vibe was serious. I had the feeling that these guys and gals felt they were defending the country against people like me.

And especially against many of the darker-skinned people across the street. Who -- gasp! -- perhaps aren't in the United States legally.

Well, that possibility didn't bother me at all. I found the diverse bunch of people at the counter rally on the north side of Court to be much friendlier, positive, energetic, and welcoming than the pro-Arpaio group. 

These sorts of messages were much in display at the counter rally. On the Capitol steps, not at all. Again, I'm not really talking about the politics of immigration reform here. There are good arguments for bolstering border security, just as there are good arguments for legalizing the immigrants already here.

I just found the "neighborliness" of the counter-rally to be in sharp contrast to the divisiveness of the pro-Arpaio, anti-immigrant people on the Capitol steps.

Right on, sign-holder.

I felt a lot more love in the air at the counter-rally. It was great to see Hispanic families arriving, parents, grandparents, children, carrying signs to show their support for a diverse, welcoming Oregon.

It was also clear that love carried the day, attendance-wise. The Statesman Journal story tells the number-tale. 

About 100 people gathered on the steps of the state Capitol on Saturday for a rally to hear Joe Arpaio, sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, speak about immigration, drugs, gun laws, taxes and getting tough on crime.

...Also in front of the Capitol, but across the street, about three times as many people gathered in protest of Arpaio, who is known for his conservative stances on immigration and hard-line policing.

Figures. Salem is a liberal-minded town which, at the moment, is governed by a conservative Mayor and City Council majority.

I didn't really feel like the counter-rally yesterday was primarily about politics, though. Sure, most of the people on one side of the street were Republicans, and most of the people on the other side of the street were Democrats.

The common denominator, of course, is that word: people.

One side, the counter-rally, embraced love, cultural diversity, creativity, human rights, and joyful celebrating. The other side? I felt rigidity, judgmentalism, and narrow-mindedness coming from the Capitol steps.

Salem, like everywhere in America, has various sides. Not just two, naturally. We are a multiplicity, E pluribus unum, "Many uniting into one." 

The challenge is to foster oneness, and decry divisiveness. That was the drama I saw playing out at the Capitol yesterday. I'm confident that love will win out over hate, neighborliness over get-out-of-here'ness.

The much greater energy, positivity, and enthusiasm shown by the folks at the counter-rally testify to that.

Hot time! Saturday counter-rally against anti-immigrant Arizona Sheriff Arpaio

If you're going to be baking in the heat here in Salem next Saturday afternoon, why not do it for a good cause?

The Oregon Republican Party has brought anti-immigrant Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio to town for a fund-raising rally on the Capitol steps. There will be a counter-rally across the street at the Capitol water fountain at 2:30 pm.  

Check out the counter-rally Facebook page. 

Courtney Garcia says in her post:

There are two ways for you to take action!

1. Join the counter-rally!
On Saturday, June 27th at 2:30PM, we will gather at the Oregon State Capitol Fountain (near 900 Court St. NE, Salem)!

Bring signs! Here are some ideas:
Arpaio Doesn't Speak for Oregon!
We support civil rights in Oregon!
We support our immigrant neighbors!

2. Write the Oregon State Sheriffs' Association (OSSA) asking them to publicly denounce Sheriff Arpaio and his racist tactics!
Email OSSA President Sheriff Jason Myers and Executive Director Ret. Sheriff John Bishop and ask them to publicly denounce Sheriff Arpaio's tactics, methods, and behavior! Sheriff Arpaio does not represent Oregon's values!

Get your group together and write a joint letter. Send it to your own county's sheriff and state representatives! Click here to download a sample letter!

OSSA Executive Director, Ret. Sheriff John Bishop: [email protected]
OSSA President, Sheriff Jason Myers: [email protected]

How will you take action? Send us an email at [email protected] and let us know!
See you in Salem!
Warmly,
Jessica

I'm thinking of going to the rally after spending some time at the World Beat Festival in Riverfront Park. The Festival opens at 10 am. I go every year no matter the weather.

Don't be heat-weenies, fellow Oregonians. Yeah, it'll be hot on Saturday.

But nowhere near as hot as it often is for people who risk crossing the desert border between the United States and Mexico in search of a better life -- the same reason my relatives came to this country.

What I find most amazing about the Oregon Republican Party's decision to bring Sheriff Arpaio to Salem is that they actually think this will help rebuild the GOP's tarnished image in this state. They said:

We bring Sheriff Joe Arpaio to Oregon to help rebuild Oregon Republican Party in order to take back Oregon in 2016.

A Republican hasn't won a statewide office in a long time. The GOP lost seats in both the state House and Senate in 2014. But somehow the R's think that bringing the country's most notorious anti-immigrant sheriff to town, who is viewed as a racist by many, will lead young people, Hispanics, and other voters into the Republican fold.

Good luck with that, Oregon GOP. Liberals like me want to thank you for another in a stunning series of politically-brain-dead strategic moves. Keep it up... please!

More public restrooms needed in Salem... and everywhere

Kudos to the Salem women who are working to get portable toilets with an artistic flair installed in the downtown area. A story by Helen Caswell in the June 11 issue of Salem Weekly, "Let's get the pottie started!" tells the got-to-go tale.

A diverse group of women have an inspired solution to the problem of public defecation in the downtown Salem core. Their goal is to involve the community in a positive way and provide portable toilets, “arta potties,” decorated with unique Salem-inspired art, in the seven blocks of downtown.

They believe this approach, unique to the US, could serve as an inspiration to cities across the country that are facing the same problem, and make Salem a leader in successfully addressing it.

“This is a man-made crisis,” says Rebecca Courtney, curator at downtown’s Roger Yost Gallery and Vice President of QA Properties.  “It is happening all across America, but we think that we in Salem have a fighting chance – unlike LA or San Francisco – because we have just seven blocks to take care of.”

Courtney, the engine that first fired the effort, began the journey several months ago when she noticed a rise in human feces in the nooks and crannies of downtown Salem.  She has lived here 11 years and found the increase – due to larger numbers of people without homes having no facilities – a biohazard, an environmental hazard and bad for business.

In the next issue of Salem Weekly, which hit the streets today, there's a follow-up story by Caswell, "Homeless welcome porta-facilities." It has some encouraging news.

People who sleep in Salem parks and doorways, under bridges and under shrubs, are excited by the chance that seven new porta-potties may be installed in downtown Salem.

Word of the first of the projected new facilities, trucked in with fanfare June 18 and placed in the parking lot of the First Congregational Church of Christ (UCC) at Marion and Cottage, quickly spread to folks entering the Homeless Outreach and Advocacy Project (HOAP) on Church Street and to those all the way down in the "Skate Park," Marion Square Park near the Willamette River.

I'm all for installing portable toilets for homeless folks. I'm also very much in favor of having more permanent public toilet facilities for everybody in downtown Salem.

And elsewhere -- because it just seems like being able to go when you've got to go should be an inalienable right along with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

My dog has this right. She can pee or poop anywhere, anytime, without fear of being cited for public indecency. Us humans, though, have a much tougher time when nature calls if we're out and about. 

In downtown Salem, as in other cities, it's possible to use the restroom in a coffee house or restaurant. But if you're not buying something in the establishment, it takes some chutzpah to waltz in and use the facilities -- with or without permission.

Travel writer Rick Steves gives tips along this line in "European Toilet Tricks to Know Before You Go." 

Any place that serves food or drinks has a restroom. No restaurateur would label his WC so those on the street can see, but you can walk into nearly any restaurant or café, politely and confidently, and find a bathroom. Assume it’s somewhere in the back, either upstairs or downstairs. It’s easiest in large places that have outdoor seating — waiters will think you’re a customer just making a quick trip inside. Some call it rude; I call it survival.

If you feel like it, ask permission. Just smile, “Toilet?” I’m rarely turned down. American-type fast-food places are very common and usually have a decent and fairly accessible “public” restroom. Timid people buy a drink they don’t want in order to use the bathroom, but that’s generally unnecessary (although sometimes the secret bathroom door code is printed only on your receipt).

Why should it be so difficult, though, to find a freaking restroom in the middle of a modern city?

Urban planners make it really easy to park cars in downtown areas, but parking a human body in front of a toilet or urinal is considerably tougher. 

Whenever my wife and I travel, we're deeply appreciative of towns that care enough about visitors and residents to offer clean, easy-to-find permanent public restrooms. For sure, this makes good economic sense. 

Nothing says Welcome, stranger more eloquently than an attractive restroom. The town of Sisters in central Oregon is a great example. We visit Sisters frequently. It was great when public restrooms were built in the middle of the downtown shopping area.

This 2009 piece by Karen Hessen in the Oregonian, "Forest Grove needs public restrooms," makes some excellent points that Salem should take to heart. Public restrooms are a downtown business booster.

Excuse me sir, could you tell me where I can find the restroom?

Last night I attended the Venetian Theater located on Main Street in Hillsboro. While walking from my car to the theater I noticed a sign in the window of the Hillsboro Pharmacy and Fountain that read, "restrooms open to the public." I started thinking about how friendly and welcoming that sign was. Is there a business in Forest Grove that aggressively invites the public in to use their restrooms? The answer to that question is "no."

I have been a business owner and know that it is difficult enough to keep restrooms stocked and maintained for paying customers. Maybe it is unreasonable to expect businesses to make their restrooms available to the public. But there are no public restrooms in all of downtown Forest Grove.

I have a house in Seaside, Oregon. In Seaside there are two public restrooms, one at each end of the major business district on Broadway. There are several other public restrooms as well: one on 12th Avenue where crabbers hang their pots from the bridge, one at the end of 12th Avenue on the prom where people park their cars for clamming and other beach activities, one on the river near Avenue S, and one in the parking lot near the convention center. These restrooms are all open until midnight.

In the small town of Sisters, Oregon a public restroom is located in the parking lot of the central downtown shopping district. This restroom is a busy place.

So what do Seaside and Sisters have that Forest Grove needs? A vital downtown that attracts people to the businesses and restaurants in the downtown area. Perhaps the city of Forest Grove should look at building and maintaining public restrooms as a way of inviting and welcoming shoppers and diners to downtown. This, in addition to bringing new businesses into the central downtown core, could give a major boost to the economy of our downtown area.

Top five reasons Salem needs an Urban Tree Commission

Today the Statesman Journal ran a front page story, "Salem considers Urban Tree Commission to protect street trees." 
Download Salem considers Urban Tree Commission to protect street trees

I liked the ending of Brandon Southward's piece.

The council appeared paralyzed about the issue at its June 8 meeting; councilors declined to vote on the creation of an Urban Tree Commission. Instead, they set a tentative September date for a public hearing.

In the interim, city staff will begin a public outreach campaign, which will include meeting with neighborhood associations.

The public might not need much outreach, as numerous citizens expressed support for the proposed commission at the June 8 meeting.

Absolutely. I was one of those citizens. (Read my written testimony.)

I heard other people tell the City Council why an Urban Tree Commission makes excellent sense. Only the Mayor seemed opposed to the idea.

This is one of the key recommendations of a broad-based Tree Code Citizens Advisory Committee that has drafted proposed changes to the City's tree ordinance (Chapter 86). 

Here's my Top Five Reasons for an Urban Tree Commission.

Well, six.

I'll end this post with mostly wordless before-and-after photos of the U.S. Bank tree killings, which resulted in the beautiful Japanese Zelkovas on State Street being cut down needlessly. If Salem had an Urban Tree Commission in 2013, almost certainly this wouldn't have happened.

(5) Currently the City of Salem kills street trees for no good reason.

This is a fact, as I said in a 2014 blog post.

Here's a dirty (or let's say, sawdusty) open secret: the City of Salem doesn't really care much about trees. 

It allows beautiful healthy trees to be cut down when they don't need to, bowing to special interests rather than the broad public interest, often ignoring expert arborist advice in favor of making "political" tree removal decisions.

...I've talked with several of Salem's outstanding arborists. They've been blunt with me about what a crappy job City officials do with this town's street trees. They're infuriated by the B.S. going on here.

It seems that who you are, and who you know, all too often determines whether a tree lives or dies, is saved or is removed.

This is a horrible way to manage Salem's urban forest.

Citizens should be able to have confidence that the care of this town's street trees is founded on what's best for the community, not what a particular business or property owner wants done with publicly-owned trees.

(4) The City already has a Shade Tree Advisory Committee.

So there won't be an extra expense if this group is converted into an Urban Tree Commission. As I told the City Council at a recent meeting, the Shade Tree Advisory Committee has been doing a good job.

The main problem with it is that one word, Advisory.

The committee generally makes good recommendations about street tree removals and other matters. But the Public Works Director has a deplorable habit of ignoring that carefully considered advice and allowing healthy beautiful trees to be removed needlessly.

(3) Citizens serving on an Urban Tree Commission would provide free expert arborist advice. 

At the same City Council meeting I testified at, Kristin Ramstad also did. Ramstad is an Urban Forester with 20 years of experience who currently works for the State of Oregon.

She said that members of similar commissions in other Oregon cities provide expert advice on tree issues that often is superior to what city staff can offer -- since these volunteers frequently have more arborist knowledge. 

Ramstad also noted that groups of people tend to make better decisions than individuals do on their own. An Urban Tree Commission would bring multiple perspectives to bear on a tree removal question, whereas currently a single individual, the City Public Works Director, makes the final decision about street tree removals.

(2) Government openness and transparency would be enhanced by an Urban Tree Commission.

Urban Forester Ramstad also correctly noted that Salem citizens no longer trust City officials to properly care for this town's street trees -- for some excellent reasons (see my highly factual "Outrage" report about the 2013 U.S. Bank tree killing debacle). 

When street tree decisions are made behind closed doors by city staff, there is lots of opportunity for backroom lobbying and deal-making. This has gone on in the past, and it will go on in the future unless Salem adopts the recommendation of a broad-based citizen committee to have an Urban Tree Commission be the final decider about street tree decisions. 

The Commission would hear citizen testimony and expert arborist advice in open public meetings. By contrast, in my "Outrage" report, in this passage I quoted from an email written to a concerned citizen by a city staffer.

Also, I’ve never heard of political pressure being put on a City official to grant an electrical permit. But this happens with street tree removal applications. As part of my public record requests I got a copy of an email from a City staff person who is familiar with tree removals.

The staffer was responding to someone who wanted to learn more about how concerned citizens can protect downtown trees.

“It is a sticky issue for sure, as businesses are often the ones who want to have the trees removed, and they can exert political pressure.”

(1) Mayor Anna Peterson doesn't want an Urban Tree Commission.

Which means the citizens of Salem should. In a City Council work session Peterson basically told Salemians, "Shut up about trees," as I reported in a Salem Weekly Strange Up Salem column.

The U.S. Bank trees were cut down because the final decision was made by Public Works Director Fernandez. The public records I got showed that lower-level City staff recognized how businesses exert “political pressure” on tree removal requests.

So the committee advised that an Urban Tree Commission be the final decider after the city’s Urban Forester and Public Works Director make their recommendations.

Mayor Peterson didn’t like that notion.

Illogically, she said that because the City Council hires the “right” City Manager, who chooses the “right” directors, who hire the “correct” people to work under them, “right” decisions are going to be made.

Wow, back to the middle ages.

It’s Salem’s version of the Divine Right of Kings. Obey, citizen peasants. Do not question the authority of Exalted Emperor Peterson and her functionaries who supposedly always make perfect street tree decisions.

The Mayor asked whether we want to be a community that encourages the public to get involved in decisions that affect people, like whether there is a good reason for certain trees on public property to be removed.

Most Salemians would answer, absolutely!

But Peterson desires less, rather than more, citizen involvement. “I want less live theatre on these policy issues,” she said.

Well, this explains a lot. If you’ve ever felt like top city officials don’t care about what you think, they’re just following their Mayor’s lead.

 

Two of the five U.S. Bank trees, still living

One of the U.S. Bank trees, being killed for no good reason

How attitudes toward marijuana in Hawaii are evolving

Yesterday I walked to the Napili Market on Maui to buy the local and Honolulu newspapers, my morning ritual during our vacation at a Napili Bay condo.

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser had a interesting column about marijuana by Richard Borreca. Mildly jet-lagged today after flying home on Friday, I decided my easiest blogging bet was typing in Borreca's piece -- see below-- which was hidden behind a Star-Advertiser paywall when I Googled it.

I enjoyed reading about how Hawaiian  attitudes regarding marijuana are steadily moving in the legalization direction, so wanted to share his column with others.

Here in Oregon, voters legalized recreational marijuana in November 2014. On July 1 of this year Oregonians can legally possess cannabis. It can't be sold in Oregon yet, but Washington state has pot stores and is a short drive across the Columbia River. 

(Yeah, technically it's a federal offense to transport marijuana across state lines, but Portland police will be looking the other way).

Both Hawaii and Oregon have legalized medical marijuana. Oregon did so in 1998, Hawaii in 2000. So it wouldn't be surprising to see Hawaii follow in Oregon's footsteps in a few years and legalize recreational marijuana.

Sure seems like a smart move. 

As Borreca notes, Hawaii already has some strong "brand recognition" in this area. Maui Wowie, for example. The islands are a wonderful place to kick back and relax. Adding legal pot would be a extra plus for the Hawaiian tourism industry, for sure.

Here's Borreca's column: 

Attitudes toward marijuana in Hawaii continue to evolve
Richard Borreca, Honolulu Star-Advertiser columnist
June 19, 2015

Hawaii has gone from the dull-throated roar of National Guard helicopters sweeping over homes searching for illegal marijuana plants to an ambivalent shrug at the thought of a neighbor puffing a small amount of the same prohibited weed.

Hawaii's thinking about marijuana splits from hating to loving the stuff.

When former Hawaii Attorney General Warren Price was declaring war on marijuana with Operation Green Harvest in 1989, he proclaimed that marijuana in Hawaii "has grown from a backyard problem to the largest industry in Hawaii."

Combining military resources, National Guard helicopters and county police forces, the operation ripped up an estimated 6.3 million plants, according to reports in 1996.

Critics, including a 1990 Legislative Auditor's report, said the drug enforcement effort was based on "unsystematic, intermittent planning geared to federal funding."

By 2008, Big Island voters overwhelmingly voted for a ballot initiative directing police to make marijuana enforcement the "lowest priority." In 2014 the state Supreme Court ruled the initiative illegal, noting that county ordinances can't overrule a state law saying marijuana is illegal.

Hawaii continued to be of two minds about marijuana as the Big Island County Council in 2008 voted to reject three federal grants totaling $528,000 for marijuana eradication. 

And by 2012, the federal Drug Enforcement Administration had closed its Big Island office and airport hanger, saying it was just saving money, but Hawaii County Police Department Maj. Randy Apele was quoted in the Hawaii Tribune-Herald saying that the county doesn't carry out aerial enforcement anymore.

While police and military police were rappelling from choppers to hack away at the pakalolo [cannabis], folks in Hilo were seeing the illegal weed's cash sales prop up an economy devastated by closing sugar plantations.

"I'm against legalizing marijuana and I never smoked it, but yet, I would have to say it helped the local economy," says Big Island Democratic Rep. Clift Tsuji.

"It was a cash crop," the former Hilo banker recalls.

Because it was also a cash business, there are no real figures for how much marijuana contributed to the economy, but longtime Hawaii islanders all have stories of growers buying big new shiny trucks with cash.

Conventional legislative wisdom has it that if Gov. David Ige approves a bill passed this year to set up medical marijuana dispensaries, it will make extensive marijuana farming legal.

Marijuana is illegal according to both state and federal laws, with possession of less than an ounce considered a misdemeanor punishable by 30 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. The feds classify it as a Schedule I drug under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act.

The other side of the coin is that Hawaii's weed has already been branded and promoted. The Maui Wowee, Kona Gold, and Puna Butter cachet from the 1980s is now a drug with medical research potential.

After years of negotiating, the University of Hawaii was able to get a U.S. Justice Department permit to import hemp seeds from Australia. Hemp is a far less potent variety of the cannabis family that includes marijuana. UH hopes to start its research at a Waimanalo test site.

Actual testing with marijuana is not allowed because it is a federally prohibited plant, but if the situation changes, Hawaii should be in a position to realize major medical and economic benefits even before any action is taken on legalization.

Look upon life as a beach, rather than a bitch

Until I Googled the phrase just now, I didn't realize that "life is a beach" is viewed as a counterpoint to "life is a bitch."

Makes sense, I guess.

But having just spent eight days on Maui's Napili Bay beach (photo above), I never thought of that. Almost right away, my wife and I fell into that state of beach'y mind that, really, should be viewed as ordinary rather than unusual.

Being a frequent visitor to Maui, I've blogged about this before. For example, in "Life lessons learned on a Maui beach" and "Life lessons I've learned boogie boarding." An excerpt from each:

Beaches erase inhibitions. Adults act like kids. Why can't we do this all of the time? Or at least, all the times the boss isn't watching. More silly, more crazy, more no reason not to. That's a great gift of beaches.

Don't be afraid of being the only one. The more skilled I get at boogie boarding, the less I worry about being all alone in a wave-catching spot. Yes, sometimes there's a reason no one else is doing what you are. However, often other people either don't know how to catch the waves I can, or they don't want to. March to the beat of your own drummer, even if you're all by yourself.

During this visit to Napili Bay I was struck by the marvelous adults act like kids effect that beaches have. Maybe it was because every time I play in the Maui ocean, I'm older myself. 

Also, my eight-year-old granddaughter and her family joined us for about half the time.

Before she arrived, I acted more like the experienced 66-year old boogie boarder that I am. I held out for waves breaking over the reefs in the bay, even though they were few and far between. I saw kids playing in the beach-breaking waves at the other end of the bay, but never joined them.

Until Evelyn arrived. Then I belatedly let my inner kid loose. She and I had a great time on our boogie boards, being thrown up onto the sloping beach as waves broke upon the sand. 

Why didn't I do this before? I guess I failed to follow my own life lessons. More silly, more crazy. Don't be afraid of being the only one. 

During the four days my granddaughter and I boogie boarded together, I don't recall seeing any adults other than me and Evelyn's father boogie'ing on the beach-crashing waves. No matter.

Like this kid whose family posted photos of him having fun on Napili Beach, I had an equally good time -- once my granddaughter helped me unleash my adult inhibitions. 

Yeah, I got a lot of sand in my swim trunks (and other places). Yeah, mostly I was zooming along sand in several inches of foamy water. Yeah, almost all of my boogie boarding comrades were 1/6 my age or younger.

Like I said, no matter. 

Just as other beachgoers felt. It was moving to see a white-haired elderly couple bobbing along in the ocean, she supported by a colorful beach inner tube, he pushing her along. Probably they were in their 80's. They were smiling like they were eight.

When they headed for shore, he helped her up onto the beach with wonderful care. She wasn't spry. It was difficult for her to walk out of the water. He lovingly supported her as she got her footing, keeping her upright step by very slow step.

Beaches turn almost everybody into who cares how I look kids again. I wish every place was a beach. Not literally, of course. In peoples' minds. Poet Mary Oliver asked:

Tell me, what is it you plan to do 
with your one wild and precious life?

Look upon life as a beach is a pretty damn good answer.

Belatedly, Statesman Journal follows in my Strange Up Salem footsteps

Welcome aboard the S.S. Salem Strange, Statesman Journal newspaper. You're late to the cruise, but it's good to see the paper finally sailing along with me and the many others who want to see this town set a course for Cool.

Embedded in a story by Tom Rastrelli, "What are Salem residents called? Governor, do you know?," we learned that Rastrelli will be writing regularly on a Keep Salem Weirder theme.
Download What are Salem residents called? Governor, do you know?

"Keep Salem Weirder" will explore the unique culture of Salem and the Mid-Valley. If you know of a quirky group or little-known subculture, let me know. It's time to celebrate our community's idiosyncrasies.

I've got a couple of reactions. First, I agree with an online commenter: 

Did this article just say that we shouldn't be compared to Portland, then straight up copy Portland's slogan?...

Good point. 

By contrast, Strange Up Salem uniquely sprouted from my fertile brain while I was on a dog walk in rural south Salem.

Which led me to start a campaign to strange up this town way back in April 2011 -- starting with some blog posts, evolving into a Salem Weekly Strange Up Salem column that had a 2013-15 run, and continues as a marvelous Facebook page.

(Give it a Like; I love likes; I live for likes!)

Second, I think Rastrelli went over-the-top when he wrote these words:

Forget big sister Portlandia and Portlanders' claim on weird. It's time for little brother to rebel and claim a place at the table. Salem has culture. Salem is just as weird. Salem is weirder!

No, Salem isn't. At least, not in a good weird way.

Compared to Portland, Corvallis, Eugene, Ashland, Bend, and some other Oregon towns, Salem suffers from the dearth of a community culture of free-spirited energetic creativity, even though we have many individuals who manifest these desirable qualities.

So I hope Rastrelli doesn't limit himself to praising pleasingly weird/strange people in this town. He, and the Statesman Journal in general, also should advocate for a community-wide environment that fosters open-mindedness, experimentation, and enhancement of Salem's human, natural, and cultural resources. 

Stu Templeman, another commenter on his story, had something similar in mind.

Salem's culture is limited by the City Councils lack of forward thinking. Culture would be having food trucks or carts through out the area without cumbersome resrictions. Culture would be having at least one parade (remember the "Rainmakers Day" parade?)

Culture would be closing down one block of High St between State St and Ferry St and filling the block with outdoor seating on Friday or Saturday nights or when events occur at the Elsinore and having stores stay open late. Culture would be inviting musicians or bands to play at River Front Park more often.

Culture would be having a good looking "Welcome to Salem" sign or flower bed like the one you see entering Keizer. Salem is the capital city but you would not know it because, well because, it lacks culture.

Being a citizen activist (the Mayor and some city councilors would prefer the term "pain in the butt"), I can confidently say that many City of Salem officials and corporate types in this town -- Salem Hospital/Salem Health, for example -- are excessively rigid, up tight, and fearful of citizen involvement. 

It's tough to have a culture of creativity in a town where the civic leaders discourage free speech and independent thinking. 

Lastly, I took Rastrelli to task in my own comment on his story, which focused on coming up with a name for residents of Salem to call themselves.

I am astounded that the Statesman Journal failed to do a bit of Googling (or reading of Salem Weekly) and realize that the obviously correct name is "Salemian." I made this clear in a 2014 "Strange Up Salem column, "We are Salemians, not Salemites."

http://www.willamettelive.com/2014/opinion/we-are-salemians-not-salemites/

Which started out with:

"I have a dream. A cause. Something offering meaning to my life. A goal that proclaims, 'This man fights for what is right.'

I hereby proclaim that I devote myself to…
Making 'Salemian' the word used to describe the people of Salem, not the horrible, distasteful, disgusting, so-wrong 'Salemite.' Why am I obsessed about doing this? Ah, let us count the persuasive ways."

(Read my piece for the ways.)

Yet this marvelous term, which echoes the oh-so-familiar "Oregonian" (adding "ian" to the name of a locale) somehow was omitted from the survey. Shame! No more... Shame, shame, shame!

But, ah, no matter. "Salemian" shall rise from the ashes of the Statesman Journal's disregard and, one glorious day, become the recognized way of referring to residents of this town.

As I said in my column:

"I am not out to rewrite the history books, though this sure would be a cool thing to do if I ever develop magical powers. I recognize that Salemite is part of our city’s heritage. From now on the word can be regarded as we look upon a phrase like 'ladies suffering from the vapours' —an archaic reference meriting a smile."

Now, after many years of daily meditation, Tai Chi practice, and other forms of spiritual development, I am hugely proud of how egoless and humble I've become. 

Don't be deceived by the fact that this blog has my last name in the title, and I have another churchless blog where I also talk about myself all the time, a personal Facebook page, and a Strange Up Salem Facebook page where I plug my blog posts, plus a Twitter account. 

My chastising of Rastrelli for failing to mention my published call to arms for "Salemian" to be the nickname of Salem residents rather than "Salemite," which is the second freaking highest Google search result for "Salem Oregon denonym" arose from pure selfless motivations. 

Obviously. 

Anyway, I'm sincerely glad that Tom Rastrelli and the Statesman Journal are doing their Keep Salem Weirder thing. I just had to keep it real and share my initial reactions to this.

Salem Hospital construction likely kills majestic White Oak

So, when will Salem's War on Trees end?

This is a town where City officials allow trees to be killed for no good reason. And where private organizations, knowing this, push tree-destruction to the legal limit and beyond.

The most recent victim of Salem's horrific tree policies is a majestic White Oak that was supposed to be the centerpiece of Salem Hospital's new parking lot. 

Here it is, being cut down.

This photo comes from the Facebook page of Elwood's Tree Service. Elwood runs a great company. He cares deeply about this town's trees. He wouldn't cut down a tree that didn't need to be removed.

The question is: why did the White Oak develop a split down the middle of the trunk that required it to be cut down? Above is another photo of the tree that Elwood provided.

Salem Hospital has been planning the parking lot for a long time. Each of the many trees on the old School for the Blind property were designated to be cut down or saved. This White Oak was one of the few trees that Salem Hospital intended to preserve.

It seems unbelievable that no one noticed a crack this large prior to the start of the parking lot construction. So the White Oak must have developed the crack afterward.

Today I did some Googling on "oak tree split damage construction."

I learned that White Oaks are particularly sensitive to construction activities involving root severance and soil compaction. I also learned that construction in general is a leading cause of trees being lost. See here, here, here, here, and here.

These are excerpts from each of the five links. 

Past tree care, construction and landscape activities can affect the health of your trees. Construction, trenches, and tree topping can all have adverse effects on your trees. If roots have been cut or disturbed, the tree may become unstable.

Prior to a construction job starting, we’re hoping your neighbor hired a certified arborist to work with the building contractor. Why should everyone do this? Because trees need some serious protection during construction jobs. Your tree’s roots can grow up to four times the width of the canopy. That means that if you have a large, established tree with 40-foot canopy, then the roots of your tree could extend into the yard two houses down from you.

There is nothing more heartbreaking than losing large, established tree. One of the common causes of tree damage and death is surrounding construction.

As we’ve spoken about regularly here at our blog, construction work is a big killer of trees. It’s incredibly important to provide proper protection for trees during the construction process.

Add in lots of traffic from heavy machinery and construction workers and you not only have massive compression but extensive root damage. Often times, large percentages of a tree's root system are completely destroyed. This weakens the tree immensly. This damage often leads to tree death, not to mention damage to surrounding property if the weakend treall [tree] falls.

It is evident in the top photo that construction activity was taking place all around the White Oak.

This tree was several hundred years old. My wife and I have a similarly-sized White Oak near our house that is about 250 years old, according to an arborist from Elwood's Tree Service (we use Elwood's for tree work on our ten natural rural acres).

The tree that developed the split lived for centuries through countless wind storms, ice storms, heavy rains, and drought. Yet Salem Hospital apparently wants us to believe that soon after heavy construction equipment worked around the tree for weeks on end, the split just coincidentally happened.

A Statesman Journal story about the removal of the White Oak says:
Download Tree removal begins at Salem Hospital

"It's a very sad day here at the hospital," said Sherryll Johnson Hoar, a spokeswoman for Salem Health, parent company of Salem Hospital and owner of the blind school property.

An eight-foot split was discovered Monday. Exactly when the split occurred and its cause remained unknown, but experts, including the city of Salem's urban forester, determined the tree to be hazardous.

...The facility will include a new outpatient rehabilitation center and adaptive playground. Work began on the project in January. Since, the hospital has been met with opposition to the 50 trees they've had to remove from the site. This tree, however, was not supposed to come down.

...Hospital officials had hoped to make the oak a key feature of the facility grounds; architects had incorporated the 200-year-old tree into the design and location of the rehab center.

"We are deeply disappointed. It is one of the most beautiful trees on site," Hoar said. "But with the instability, we had to clear the tree, otherwise it just wouldn't be safe."

Deeply disappointed isn't good enough, Salem Hospital. In my opinion, your careless construction work probably killed the tree. This happened after you got a variance from compliant City of Salem officials to allow nine other "significant" White Oaks to be removed.

A neighborhood association wants the trees to live.

The law in question comes from Chapter 68 of The City of Salem’s code, the tree preservation ordinance.   It says that no one can cut down a “significant” tree, an Oregon White Oak greater than 24-inches at breast height, except under certain limited circumstances, which the hospital does not meet.

This spring, as part of their process to develop the land, Salem Hospital asked the city for a variance to the law and for approval to cut the trees.  On June 25th, their request was granted by the City’s Planning Administrator.

So, to put it bluntly, Salem Hospital and its parent organization Salem Health, obviously don't give a shit about preserving large, beautiful trees. This makes it more likely that Salem Hospital turned a blind eye to careless construction activities that fatally damaged the White Oak. 

We also need to keep in mind that the entire parking lot design process took place with preservation of trees as secondary to maximizing the number of parking spaces. A Breakfast on Bikes blog post says:

However...at another Salem institution, there is sad and unsurprising news. The giant parking lot at the former Blind School property has claimed another loss.

Somehow, as its roots and soil and canopy were altered by construction activities, one of the large oaks developed fatal health problems. It might not be possible to find direct causation - but really, the coincidence is very suspicious indeed.

The Hospital's plans did feature the tree. I think they did want to save it and I don't think that they intended for construction to kill it. There's no conspiracy here.

But it should surprise no one that the parking lot and associated buildings were not planned in a way deeply sensitive to the existing ecosystem. The site plan was "imposed" on the site, not developed in tandem with it in an organic way. This is a failure of siting and of landscape architecture.

And again, it's all driven by cars, by the vast parking lot.

The people of Salem, who subsidize the nonprofit status of Salem Hospital -- which is supposed to put community needs in the forefront -- deserve a White Oak "post mortem."

Several certified arborists who haven't been involved with Salem Hospital's parking lot construction or the tree's removal need to be paid by Salem Hospital to produce an assessment of what probably caused the split in the White Oak. 

This assessment should be released to the public without any editing or alteration. We need to learn why the White Oak needed to be cut down. Just as with the 2013 debacle of the U.S. Bank trees, the death of a tree(s) should not be in vain.

Meaning, Salem needs to learn from this sad episode so it never happens again.

Salem Mayor gets irked at me for telling the truth

In case you missed my Strange Up Salem Facebook post about Mayor Anna Peterson's irritated reaction to my oh-so-truthful testimony about the disgraceful 2013 U.S. Bank tree removals, here's a video of yesterday's City Council meeting. 

(If you're a Facebooker, give Strange Up Salem a "like" if you want to get my marvelous observations about this town.)

My testimony during the public comment starts at about 32:25 minutes in and continues to about the 45 minute mark. (Click here to go to the You Tube video and have it start at that point. I only got three minutes to speak; questions and comments from City Councilors and the Mayor took up the rest of the time.

 

The final result of the agenda item regarding a proposed Urban Tree Commission, which I was testifying about, was great. I had to leave the meeting after I testified. Here's how a friend described the outcome in an email to me.

"Mayor Peterson was slowly beat back on her assertion that all tree decisions be made in-house without public input. A couple of councilors were concerned about how ‘messy’ it is to allow the public to be involved in these decisions [via an Urban Tree Commission] but councilor Chuck Bennett eventually convinced them - all of them - to agree to let the draft changes in Chapter 86 [the City's tree ordinance] go out to the public including neighborhood associations and other civic groups who are interested. 

I have to say that Peter Fernandez, the Director of Public Works, did a great job of selling the part about the Urban Tree Commission comparing it to the City’s Traffic Commission as a model. Chuck indicated that this will be a long process culminating in a public hearing. I believe that the first group to get the presentation is the CANDO neighborhood association."

There's still some unfinished business between me and Mayor Peterson, though.

She chastised me for daring to say that the above-mentioned Peter Fernandez had made a backroom deal with the U.S. Bank president, Ryan Allbritton, to have the five trees cut down two years before the bank had even applied to have them removed.

This happens to be the truth. Meaning, it is a highly justified conclusion based upon irrefutable facts: public record documents that I got in the course of researching my tell-all report about the 2013 U.S. Bank tree debacle. 

You can read the 18-page report via a link on my blog post, "Outrage: the true story of Salem's U.S. Bank tree killings."

I re-read it this morning, as it had been a while since I'd done this.

My unsurprising reaction was Damn, man, this is so well written, and makes so much sense, you deserve an Investigative Blogger Pulitizer Prize! (assuming such exists, which, sadly, I'm sure it doesn't).

Last night Mayor Peterson said that Peter Fernandez couldn't have made a backroom deal to have the five Japanese Zelkovas removed because this isn't the way they do things at City Hall. Well, the Mayor is wrong. I suspect she hasn't even read my report.

Because if she had, she would have found this on p. 16:

In 2010 the City’s Public Works Director made an informal back-room verbal deal with the bank president to cut down the trees that took precedence over the legal process for considering a 2012 application to remove the downtown street trees. 

Again, that's a fact.

Mayor Peterson is entitled to her own opinions, but not to her own facts. Either she has willfully chosen to remain ignorant of what Peter Fernandez did, or she doesn't consider the backroom deal that occurred to be anything unusual.

I theorized in my report that the latter possibility could explain why so few City officials were outraged by the outrageous actions of Fernandez.

As noted in item (2) of this report, Allbritton and Fernandez had made some sort of verbal agreement back in 2010, several years before U.S. Bank submitted its 2012 application to remove the five trees. Allbritton reminded five of the eight city councilors of this verbal agreement, which should have rung unethical and illegal alarm bells in their minds.

Or maybe they weren’t disturbed by what Allbritton told them because this is how things are typically done at City Hall these days: work out deals with special interests behind the scenes, then go through the show of holding public hearings and issuing a formal decision.

If so, the lack of disturbance by the city councilors is what is truly disturbing, because it points to far-reaching systemic problems in how the City of Salem does the public’s business. 

After Mayor Peterson did her chastising thing, I stood my ground.

Having the truth on my side gave me a firm foundation. I told her that I'd be pleased to debate her anytime, anywhere -- like before the Statesman Journal or Salem Weekly editorial boards, KMUZ community radio, a CCTV program, whatever.

She and other City officials need to face the facts about what happened in the U.S. Bank trees saga. Without acknowledging what transpired, as detailed in my "Outrage" report, it is going to be difficult to learn from history and stop the same mistakes from happening again. 

Our so-called community newspaper, the Statesman Journal (which actually is a cog in the giant Gannett Corporation media machine), also is at fault for engaging in head-in-the-sand behavior on City tree issues. 

A reporter wrote a planned front-page story about my "Outrage" report, but it was killed by the Statesman Journal executive editor, Michael Davis. I told that sad story in one of my Truth Bombs, "The Statesman Journal newspaper is failing Salem."

I wrote a report about how City officials and the U.S. Bank president cut down five downtown trees for no good reason. Then the Statesman Journal refused to publish a story that a reporter had written about the report. When I asked "Why?" I got no response, no good reason. 

 

This is Salem's dysfunctional vicious circle: crap goes on at City Hall, and citizens are given no good reasons for it. Then the not-really "paper of record," the Statesman Journal, refuses to tell its readers what is going on in town, again giving no good reasons for its news censoring. 

Ever the optimist, I'm hopeful that the Mayor's over-confident assertion last night that we don't do backroom deals at City Hall will make the Statesman Journal rethink its decision to ignore the story of the U.S. Bank trees that I told in my "Outrage" report.

I've presented persuasive factual evidence that high-ranking City staff actually do engage in backroom deals with Salem's rich and powerful. Mayor Peterson says they don't. 

Sure seems like a great opportunity for Salem's journalistic community -- Statesman Journal, Salem Weekly, KMUZ, CCTV, maybe others -- to have a sit-down with me and the Mayor (or her designee) and talk about my report and her reaction to it.

You're dead, but not forgotten, my leafy friends. I fought to save you while you were still alive, and I'll continue to fight to prevent any more beautiful, healthy, large street trees in Salem from being killed needlessly -- especially not because a Public Works Director made a backroom deal with a bank president.

"Salem needs an Urban Tree Commission," I tell the City Council

Here's testimony about the Urban Tree Commission agenda item for tomorrow's Salem City Council meeting that I just emailed to the Mayor and City Council.

A few days ago I wrote another blog post on this subject, "Tell the Salem City Council we need an Urban Tree Commission." Well, I've followed my advice. I owe it to the beautiful U.S. Bank Trees, which were cut down for no good reason.

Dear Mayor and City Councilors,

In addition to the emailed testimony I sent you on behalf of Salem Community Vision supporting an Urban Tree Commission and bringing forward to a public hearing unaltered the draft changes to Chapter 86 recommended by the Tree Code Citizens Advisory Committee, here’s some personal testimony along the same lines.

 

I watched a CCTV recording of what I believe was the most recent Council work session where this subject was addressed. Objections to an Urban Tree Commission came mostly from Mayor Peterson, as I recall. They seemed to center on three assumptions — each of which I take issue with.

 

(1) There is no need for an Urban Tree Commission because City staff are perfectly capable of making street tree related decisions under a revised Chapter 86.

 

I summarized the Mayor’s remarks in a Salem Weekly column.

She said that because the City Council hires the “right” City Manager, who chooses the “right” directors, who hire the “correct” people to work under them, “right” decisions are going to be made.

Well, if this is true, why does the City of Salem have any commissions? Why not do away with the Planning Commission and let City staff make all of their decisions? Why not do away with the Historic Landmarks Commission and let City staff make all of their decisions?

 

There is a disappointing history of City staff making wrong tree-related decisions. The 2013 U.S. Bank tree removals are a prime example, which I documented in my 2014 “Outrage” report after reviewing many public records documents. See:

http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2014/05/outrage-the-true-story-of-salems-us-bank-tree-killings.html

 

Here’s a few excerpts from that post:

These trees were entirely innocent. They weren't diseased. The sidewalk wasn't being damaged by them. They could have been pruned rather than killed. The City of Salem's own tree expert and its Shade Tree Advisory Committee said so repeatedly. As did arborists and dozens of concerned citizens who loved the five State Street trees and wanted them saved.

 

...This is a case study of how city government shouldn't work. 

Here the Public Works Director, Peter Fernandez, ignored the law, facts, expert advice, advisory committee recommendations, and lots of public testimony so he could keep a back-room verbal promise to the U.S. Bank president, Ryan Allbritton, to cut the five large, healthy, beautiful trees down. 

The extra-legal promise itself is bad enough. Worse, Fernandez made that promise two years before the bank started the required process of filing an application to remove the trees. 

Even so, Public Works Director Fernandez was all set to order that the trees be pruned, rather than removed, until bank president Allbritton reminded him of that "just between us" deal they'd made together. It didn't matter that Albritton was unable to give a single coherent reason why the trees needed to be killed.

After Fernandez spoke with the bank president, everything changed. 

So this shows that City staff do make mistakes, and an Urban Tree Commission is needed as an appeal body after City staff make a tree-related decision under Chapter 86. (Note: I believe there should be another level of appeal beyond the Urban Tree Commission, but this is another subject.)

 

(2) With the added criteria to guide tree removal and other decisions under a revised Chapter 86, as recommended by the Tree Code Citizens Advisory Committee, these decisions will become routine administrative matters akin to deciding on the merits of an electrical or plumbing permit application.

 

Decidedly untrue. As noted in my previous message, trees are living entities, not lifeless objects. Determining the health of a tree, including whether it is at imminent risk of dying, is akin to making a medical diagnosis. Treatment and possible cure depend on the accuracy of the diagnosis. 

 

My wife and I have personal experience of this. A few years ago we asked a certified arborist to look at a very large fir tree on our rural south Salem property. He thought the tree was diseased and needed to be cut down. We were wary of this recommendation for several reasons, one of them being that a friend of his had come along who said he could do the removal work for $1,000. 

 

We got a second opinion from another certified arborist, Elwood Newhouse — who has done quite a bit of work on our property. I’ve also enjoyed conversing with Elwood about his take on City of Salem tree policies (Elwood, a straight shooter, has some strong negative opinions about this). Elwood said the tree was fine. We took his advice. Currently the tree is still is good health.

 

Keep in mind: these were two certified arborists. If we hadn’t gotten a second opinion, a healthy large beautiful tree would have been cut down for no good reason — just as has occurred with numerous City street trees. An Urban Tree Commission will help ensure that decisions about tree removals are made on the basis of the best possible expert arborist advice, not the fallible opinion of a single City of Salem staffer.

 

(3) Salem doesn’t need more citizen involvement on tree issues, it needs less. 

 

For me, this was the most objectionable statement I heard Mayor Peterson make. Here’s the quote:

 I want less live theatre on these policy issues. 

I’m not sure what “live theatre” means. With the U.S. Bank trees, and to a lesser extent with the High Street trees, many people were justifiably upset at the Public Works Director ignoring recommendations of the Shade Tree Advisory Committee and ordering eight large, healthy, beautiful trees to be cut down. 

 

Yes, the Advisory Committee did recommend removing two of the three High Street trees, but they only heard from City staff; Elwood Newhouse inspected the High Street trees at my request and concluded that all three were in good condition and should be saved — another reason for an Urban Tree Commission.

 

If “live theatre” means the citizens of Salem standing up and protesting the unnecessary removal of valuable street trees, then I think most people would say we need more of this, not less.

 

As evidence, I’ll point you to a May 13 post on my Strange Up Salem Facebook page about the removal of the High Street trees. 

https://www.facebook.com/StrangeUpSalem/posts/829673367113466

 

Whenever I write about a tree-related subject, I’m surprised by how vigorous the response is. (I only wish my other posts got as much attention; there’s something about trees that captures the attention of Salemians.)

 

That post about the High Street tree removals got 151 “likes,” 32 “shares,” and 77 comments. This shows that people in Salem care deeply about street trees.

 

They aren’t going to stop caring if the City Council decided to markedly modify the recommendations of the Tree Code Citizens Advisory Committee and do away with the Urban Tree Commission proposal before it even has a chance to be discussed in an open public hearing.

 

Rather, I’m pretty sure that the Council’s eventual public hearing on Chapter 86 revisions will be doubly contentious if this happens: citizens will be calling for the reinstatement of the Urban Tree Commission, and asking why the Urban Tree Commission was removed from the Advisory Committee recommendations without any genuine opportunity for citizens to weigh in on this subject.

 

Regarding this: I follow Salem tree issues much more closely than most people. Yet last Friday was the first time I’d seen a draft of the proposed changes to Chapter 86. I don’t believe the Tree Code Citizens Advisory Committee held any public meetings or asked for input from people. No opportunity for public involvement, obviously, was possible at the Council work sessions where this subject was discussed.

 

The City’s press release about tomorrow’s Council meeting made no mention of the Urban Tree Commission agenda item. So far the Statesman Journal hasn’t run a story about the Urban Tree Commission proposal being on the agenda. Thus nobody, aside from a few people like me who keep track of this stuff, has been made aware that, a few days after the draft changes to Chapter 86 were released via the City of Salem staff report on this agenda item, major changes to the Advisory Committee recommendations may be made without a chance for public input.

 

Lastly, at the recent Council meeting I attended you voted unanimously to accept the report of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on the Police Facility. I’m baffled by why you aren’t doing the same thing with the recommendations of the Tree Code Citizens Advisory Committee. As was noted at that Council meeting, “accept” doesn’t mean “agree with.” 

 

I strongly suggest that you leave unaltered the recommendations of that committee. Accept them. Hold a public hearing on them. See what citizens think about the recommendations. Then decide what, if anything, needs to be changed in the Chapter 86 revisions. 

 

The City Council already has the last word on making changes to a City ordinance. It would be unnecessary and divisive to also have the “first word” and markedly alter the recommended changes by removing a key component, the Urban Tree Commission, without a public hearing or any genuine opportunity for the public to weigh in on this issue.

 

Sincerely,

 

Brian Hines

Tell the Salem City Council: "We need an Urban Tree Commission"

Salem's citizens love their trees. But many people, including me, have been deeply disturbed by how City officials have removed large, healthy, beautiful downtown trees for no good reason.

Meaning, against the advice of independent expert arborists and even the City's own urban forester. I documented the debacle of the needless 2013 destruction of five Japanese Zelkovas on State Street in a tell-all report, "Outrage: Salem's U.S. Bank tree killings."

Download Outrage Report

It was deeply disturbing for tree lovers to see this...

Turned into this...

The tree removals happened because a City ordinance allowed one person to make the decision: Public Works Director Peter Fernandez.

He ignored the recommendation of the City's Shade Tree Advisory Committee and Urban Forester to prune the trees rather than cut them down, having made a backroom deal with the U.S. Bank president, Ryan Allbritton, to have the trees removed even before an application had been submitted.

This isn't hearsay. This is fact.

I sent my "Outrage" report to Fernandez, Allbritton, City Councilors, and others involved with the tree removals. I asked them to let me know if I'd gotten anything wrong. I didn't hear back from anyone. I wasn't surprised since I based my report on public records documents that I paid $726.61 for.

Since changes obviously needed to be made to how the City of Salem handled street tree removals, a Tree Code Citizens Advisory Committee was formed to draft a new SRC Chapter 86 -- the tree ordinance section.

The committee was comprised of representatives from the Homebuilders Association, Neighborhood Associations, Salem Board of Realtors, Shade Tree Advisory Committee, Salem Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Downtown Advisory Board, and an Urban Forester from the Oregon Department of Forestry.

A key part of their proposed revisions to the tree ordinance was replacing the Shade Tree Advisory Committee with an Urban Tree Commission.

The Urban Tree Commission would make the final decision on street tree removals if someone appealed the initial decision by the Public Works Director, or whoever else was assigned that duty. This solved a big problem made evident by the U.S. Bank tree removal controversy. 

Here's an excerpt from my "Outrage" report.

As part of my public record requests I got a copy of an email from a City staff person who is familiar with tree removals. The staffer was responding to someone who wanted to learn more about how concerned citizens can protect downtown trees.

“It is a sticky issue for sure, as businesses are often the ones who want to have the trees removed, and they can exert political pressure.”

This shows that U.S. Bank’s request to remove the five Japanese Zelkovas was utterly unlike the routine building permit’ish decision the Urban Forester claimed it was. If the decision had been based on expert arborist advice and public testimony, Public Works Director Fernandez would have denied the request and saved the trees.

This, as we’ve seen, is what Fernandez planned to do before he was lobbied by bank president Ryan Allbritton. 

So it makes a lot of sense to have an Urban Tree Commission made up of knowledgeable citizens making the final decision on tree removals, rather than a City official who can be lobbied behind closed doors by someone wanting to have a tree removed for no good reason.

Unfortunately, next Monday, June 8, 6:30 pm, the Salem City Council is considering whether to do away with the Urban Tree Commission proposal before it even has a chance to be discussed in a public hearing. 

This is a very bad idea. (See my Strange Up Salem column, "Mayor to citizens: shut up about trees.")

Today, as a member of the Salem Community Vision steering committee, I told the Mayor and City Councilors that SCV is strongly opposed to trashing this key aspect of what the Tree Code Citizens Advisory Committee has recommended.

After all, the City Council gets to make the final decision on proposed revisions to Salem's tree ordinance. They should do this after they hold public hearings on what the Tree Code Citizens Advisory Committee came up with. It is unseemly for the Council to modify the proposed revisions without giving citizens a chance to weigh in on them.

If you agree, tell the Mayor and City Council this: email them at [email protected]  And consider coming to the June 8 City Council meeting to speak your piece during the opening public comment period.

Salem's tree lovers need to stand up for our leafy friends. Removing beautiful, large, healthy street trees for no good reason has to stop.

An Urban Tree Commission will help ensure that new tree removal criteria proposed by the Tree Code Citizens Advisory Committee will be adhered to, rather than ignored. Also, that concerned citizens can appeal tree removal decisions which don't appear to be based on solid arborist evidence.

Here's the message that was sent by Salem Community Vision to the Mayor and City Council:

Dear Mayor Peterson and Salem City Councilors,

 

After reviewing the staff report for the June 8 Council meeting agenda item regarding the proposed Urban Tree Commission, Salem Community Vision has a strong recommendation:

 

Allow the proposed changes to Chapter 86 that have been drafted by the Tree Code Citizen’s Advisory Committee to be brought forward to a public hearing without alteration. 

 

In other words, don’t abolish the Urban Tree Commission and its authority to hear appeals of tree removal decisions without giving citizens a chance to weigh in on this important proposal. 

 

The Tree Code Citizen’s Advisory Committee worked hard on coming up with improvements to SRC Chapter 86. Their draft changes to Salem’s tree ordinance deserve to be considered and commented on by the many citizens who care deeply about this town’s trees.

 

If the Council decides to do away with the proposed Urban Tree Commission without a public hearing, this will prevent concerned citizens from testifying on the merits of this key provision in the Tree Code Citizen’s Advisory Committee’s draft ordinance revisions. 

 

As you are well aware, past street tree removals by the City have been controversial, in part because (1) tree removal decisions by the Public Works Director were at odds with recommendations of the Shade Tree Advisory Committee, and (2) citizens were unable to appeal tree removal decisions by the Public Works Director. 

 

The Tree Code Citizen’s Advisory Committee’s recommendation to have the Director's tree removal decisions appealable to an Urban Tree Commission will help restore public confidence that when a street tree is removed, there was good reason to do so.

 

Decisions about the health and viability of a tree are not cut-and-dried. 

 

They are akin to medical assessments, which often benefit from a second (or third) opinion from experts. An appeals process to the Urban Tree Commission would allow for both expert testimony by arborists and input from neighbors, surrounding businesses, and other people concerned about a proposed street tree removal.

 

Salem Community Vision urges you to allow the draft changes to Chapter 86 that have been recommended by the Tree Code Citizen’s Advisory Committee to move forward to a public hearing unaltered.

 

Sincerely,

 

Brian Hines

Salem Community Vision steering committee

Les Schwab can sell you ANY brand of tires. Who knew? (Not me)

Like many other Oregonians, I'm a big fan of the Les Schwab Tire Center chain. Their customer service is superb, as I talked about in a 2005 post, "I love Les Schwab."

I’ve got a thing going with Les Schwab. Not with the man—my tofuish sensibilities don’t mesh with Les’ “Free Beef” mentality—but with the chain of tire stores that he founded. 

Yesterday I bought four tires for our Prius at the south Salem Les Schwab Tire Center and, per usual, my experience with the company was exemplary.

...When I called Les Schwab to get a quote on some Toyos I told the guy who answered the phone: 

"You’ve earned my loyalty after one of your crew ran out to greet me in the parking lot when I came in this spring with a tubeless mower tire that I couldn’t figure out how to fix. He repaired it for free in a flash."

That sort of Les Schwab service is legendary, as described in this glowing online business magazine article: “Four tires, free beef.” They fix flats for free, whether or not they sold you the tires. And when I said “ran out to greet me,” I meant that literally. Les Schwab employees run all over the place. This is one high-energy, high-customer service business.

But I've always thought that Les Schwab only sold a few brands of tires, notably Toyo. 

That's why I recently ordered four run-flat Bridgestone replacement tires for my 2011 Mini Cooper from Tire Rack.com after one of the original Continental tires got a nail puncture and, as advertised, ran flat to get me home.

(Continental doesn't recommend repairing its run-flat tires, as the sidewall may be weakened after driving on them with no air. Plus, I had enough miles on the OEM tires to justify replacing all four.)

Tire Rack.com also has great customer service. I ordered the tires on Thursday; they arrived from Nevada on Monday. 

Today I phoned the south Salem Les Schwab store to make an appointment to have the Bridgestones installed. In the course of our conversation the guy I talked with said, "Did you know that we can get any brand of tires for you?"

"No," I told him. "That's news to me. Thanks for letting me know. Next time I'll probably order new tires from you, since I really like your customer service."

When I took my Mini Cooper in this afternoon to have the new tires put on, diligently driving under 50 mph as the warning indicator on the dash told me, I double-checked with a different Les Schwab employee. "So you guys could have ordered run-flat Bridgestones for me?"

"Yes," he confirmed. "They just might cost more than you'd pay somewhere else." I told him that this probably wouldn't be a problem, given how much I like Les Schwab.

It's been quite a while since my wife and I have bought tires from Les Schwab. Doesn't matter, though, when it comes time to have winter tires/wheels that I bought from Tire Rack mounted on my Mini Cooper and our Toyota Highlander. 

I never have to pay for this. The Les Schwab employee looks at a computer screen, sees that we've bought tires from Les Schwab in the past, and tells me "no charge" -- even though the winter tires were bought somewhere else.

This is a great way to keep customers satisfied. Real smart for Les Schwab to do this. However...

My recommendation to Les Schwab management is that you do a better job of publicizing the fact that people can order any brand of tires from you. I probably would have bought our two sets of Bridgestone Blizzak winter tires from Les Schwab if I'd known this.

Before writing this blog post I Googled "Les Schwab order any brand." Nothing relevant showed up on the first few pages of search results, aside from a mention of that fact in a Yelp review that didn't seem to exist any more.

Now, I don't know how much the four Bridgestone Driveguard tires would have cost me if I'd bought them through Les Schwab. Tire Rack.com charged me $475, including $69 for shipping. I then had to pay Les Schwab $178 for dismounting the old tires, mounting the new ones, and balancing the new ones. 

There would have been some charge for doing these things if I'd bought the tires from Les Schwab, but the cost would have been less (my line item bill for balancing says "non LS product"). So I'm not sure how I would have fared, cost-wise, if I'd ordered the Bridgestone tires from Les Schwab rather than Tire Rack.

With tires bought from Les Schwab, though, you get free flat tire repairs, rotations, rebalancing, and air checks for the life of the tires. Pretty good deal. Free popcorn and coffee also, while you're waiting.

So I think Les Schwab would be well-served by publicizing more openly the availability of other brands. This would require some changes in the company's marketing strategy, which was described in a post on the Modern Tire Dealer web site, "Brand Awareness." 

Strong relationships with your tire suppliers will help your business run more efficiently and successfully, and less stressfully.

But the brand is only part of what defines you in the public’s eyes.

Look at Les Schwab Tire Centers. The third largest independent tire dealership in the country sells the Toyo, Dean, Federal, Hankook and Multi-Mile consumer tires, but you would never know it by looking at its advertising. Or outdoor signage. Or website.

Oh, the tires all have names. They are almost always the line names, however, not the brand names. Take, for example, the Toyo Open Country A/T. The SUV tire is listed on the company’s website as the Open Country A/T.

(I had never heard of one of the passenger car tires, Thunderer, and had to look it up. It is made by Deestone Ltd. out of Thailand.)

Does it matter? When potential customers see an ad, or drive by an outlet, or search the website, they see Les Schwab tires, not brand name tires. Branding your business doesn’t get any better than that.

OK.

But Les Schwab should keep in mind that there are quite a few tire buyers like me, people who care about the quality and characteristics of the tires they're thinking of buying as much as the reputation of the store selling them.

I never thought of Les Schwab when I read many highly positive reviews of the Bridgestone Driveguard run-flat tires on TireRack.com. As noted before, I thought Les Schwab only sold Toyos and some other little-known brands.

Anyway, I'm glad to let the secret out: apparently Les Schwab tire stores can order any brand of tire (at least, the south Salem store is willing to do this; I assume the same is true of other Les Schwab tire centers). 

Critic yes, but I'm also a cheerleader for Salem

Because I've written a lot of blog posts about Salem, quite a few of them critical, among some people I've got an undeserved reputation as a Salem-hater.

Actually, I love this town. 

Below I've shared recent emails I've gotten from two people interested in possibly relocating to Oregon, along with my reply. You can see that I'm positive about Salem -- which fits with me having happily lived in and near Salem for 37 years.

My attitude is similar to how I felt when told in the 1960's "Love it or leave it, hippie!" I'd think, "Hey, I can not want to leave this country, and also want to make it better, since I don't love everything about the United States."

Same with Salem. I can love it, not want to leave it, and also be critical of it. 

So, yeah, it's fair to say that I'm a cheerleader for Salem.

Read on for the mildly edited messages from Person #1 and Person #2, along with my initial replies. Since, I've exchanged additional messages with them. 

Here's the email message I got from Person #1:

Hi Brian!

Stumbled on your site while researching Salem. My husband and I (along with a human baby and two furry babies) are looking to re-locate to Oregon.

While we originally looked in and around Portland and Eugene (we both love Portland -- I lived in Seattle in my twenties during the mid 90's and spent many a free weekend at Powell's before catching the train back to Seattle), I've noticed there are quite a number of positions open in Salem. Since you have spent a goodly amount of time there (37 years!) I thought I'd email and get your insight on it. 

About us -- liberal, crunchy but not dopey, atheist but follow the middle path for guidance, avid hikers (our honeymoon was John Muir Trail), and a bit artsy (my husband is an actor on the side, I'm more the nose in the book kind), and at the end of the day down to earth, hopeful, and looking for the positive in most people and sitches.

We are mainly looking to re-locate as it is impossible to buy a house in CA and the schools here suck. I would really love to live in a place which is multi-cultural, open, kid friendly, and has good schools. It would be a bonus if we could buy a house, but the focus is primarily a good place for families. We are hoping to give _____ a sibling or two in the next few years before we run out of time on our biological clocks. 

With that in mind-would you say Salem might be a good option for us? 

Thanks in advance!

My reply to Person #1:

Salem is a good family town. I’m glad my daughter grew up here, from 1977 until she graduated from high school in 1990. It lacks the “coolness” factor of Portland and Eugene, but there are some promising signs we’re getting cooler. Probably will write a blog post today about attending a recent city council meeting that offered up some hope along this line.

I could share some advice about where in Salem you might feel most comfortable, and other thoughts about the town. If you ever want to talk, my home number is ___________.

A good thing about Salem is the comparatively low housing costs. Also, the comparative lack of traffic/congestion. My wife and I get antsy about driving to Portland, since nowadays it seems like freeway rush “hour” can be almost any time of the day. However, I know quite a few people who live in Portland and work in Salem, because they prefer the Portland lifestyle and amenities.

Anyway, when I read your message I thought, “they’d fit right in.” We also mostly associate with liberal, atheist, outdoorsy people. As I’ve written about fairly recently, Salem is a liberal town, albeit with a (hopefully temporary) conservative Mayor and city council majority.

    — Brian

And here's an email from Person #2:

Dear Brian,

Just stumbled on your article about “planned communities” in Oregon for those of us nearing retirement. I found it as I was researching for a vacation/retirement exploration trip my husband and I (and daughter) are taking at the end of August 2015.

We’ve never been to the Northwest but everything we’ve read and heard makes us think we would be really happy to retire there. As I read your article, your description of yourself and what you’re looking for is identical to our goals. (Aging, active hippy types) Just wondering if you’ve found anything or any new builds since you wrote that piece in 2013?

Where can I get a good breakdown of cities we should check out while we’re there? Well, I hope you’re still communicating with the cyber world as I would appreciate whatever help/guidance you can give.

Thanks so much, _______

This is my reply to Person #2:

_______, nice to hear from you. If your tour of the Northwest brings you to Salem, let me know. We could get together for coffee and a snack, or whatever. 

I think you’d be happy with the Northwest. We sure are. I prefer Oregon to Washington, but that’s because I’ve lived here since 1971. The weather is a bit milder and less rainy in western Oregon compared to western Washington, but the Puget Sound area definitely has a lot going for it.

 

We haven’t found any actual retirement communities that appeal to us yet. We’ve expressed interest (and even put a $1,000 deposit down on one) in a couple of continuing care communities — thinking ahead to the time when we could be needing that sort of care. 

 

Right now, at age 65 and 66, we don’t. So for the moment we’re happy to stay on our 10 acres in rural south Salem. We’ve got another deposit down on two lots in a new development here in Salem, Fairview Addition.

 

Regarding cities, these are the “coolest” cities for retirement in Oregon. (I’m not as familiar with Washington.) Portland, Eugene, Corvallis, Ashland, Bend. 

 

The coast and eastern/central Oregon (Bend is in central Oregon) appeal to many people, but to us they have too many drawbacks as a place to live, as opposed to visiting. The coast is rainy and foggy much of the year. Central and eastern Oregon are cold much of the year, though for skiers this is great (the ski reason was poor last winter, though, because it rained more than snowed due to climate change, most likely).

 

We like the Willamette Valley because the weather is temperate, and you’re close to the coast, to Portland, to the mountains. Salem, though I criticize it a lot, does have quite a few positive points.

 

Notably, housing costs are considerably cheaper here than in Portland and even other Willamette Valley cities. $300,000 buys a nice home here, while in Portland this would be a shack, comparatively. Salem is more low-key, without the crime, traffic jams, and such that Portland has. So you should give the Salem area a look.

 

I’d be glad to talk with you by phone if you ever want to discuss Oregon and the Northwest that way. 

 

Also, Sisters, in central Oregon is a wonderful small town. Well worth a visit. It’s about half an hour from Bend. If it wasn’t for the winters, and the generally less temperate climate there (spring comes late and fall early), I could see myself living in Sisters. 

 

    -- Brian