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.
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:
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.
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
Brian, it was a long, HOT day today working with stinging insects that I love, BUT:
I went in the house to take a break at a bit after 7:00 pm and remembered about the city council meeting.
I found the stream just as you walked up to the mike.
The mayor looked really happy to see you; NOT!!!
Brian, you did a really, really good job!
:-)
In my work, there are times that I enter a honey bee hive that has a serious problem. I enter the hive with the knowledge, tools and materials to SOLVE the problem.
I am there to save their life.
The bees rarely, but sometimes sting me for my effort. THANKS, BEES!!!
You stood up there getting your nose bit off and composed yourself perfectly!
Good job, Brian!
Are we the "Tree City" or not?
And here's a shocker:
I really like Anna Peterson.
She actually interviewed me for a position back in the 1990s. I love her!
But, as the old adage goes, "When ever you get two or more people together, there will be conflict."
Brian, YOU shined in the exchange with the mayor this evening!!!
Inside baseball question:
Who handed the mayor a lemon to chew on just as you approached the podium?
Posted by: Harry Vanderpool | June 08, 2015 at 07:45 PM
Harry, not surprisingly... I love your comment! Thanks, man.
You know, I like Anna Peterson also, just as I like Peter Fernandez. I mean, not as in best-friends-like, but they are human beings trying to do the best they can in a difficult-to-live-in world. So I like them for that.
Still, speaking the truth is more important to me than papering things over just so We All Can Get Along. My wife and I argue about a lot of stuff. We also love each other.
Disagreeing doesn't mean dislike. I happen to dislike what Peter Fernandez did when he allowed the U.S. Bank trees to be cut down for no good reason. This doesn't mean that I dislike Peter Fernandez.
Anyway, thanks for the comment.
I felt relaxed and at ease standing at the podium this evening. That's the benefit of honesty and straightforwardness. I just wanted to say what I consider to be true. If someone -- Mayor Peterson or anyone else -- is able to come up with facts and arguments that change my mind, great.
Like I said at the Council meeting, though, I've asked for those facts and arguments from City officials for over a year now, and none have been forthcoming.
Posted by: Brian Hines | June 08, 2015 at 09:33 PM