Salem Political Snark

"Our Salem" workshop laid out an appealing vision for our city

Yesterday I came away more enthused than I expected about Salem's future, because there seemed to be widespread citizen agreement about how our city should grow in a fashion that improves quality of life.

Last night I attended a City of Salem workshop at Pringle Hall that marks another phase of the Our Salem project aimed at updating our city's Comprehensive Plan.

OK, that sounds geekily boring. 

And as I sat at a table at the beginning of the workshop, listening to someone describe what sounded like an overly complex plan for how the two-hour meeting was supposed to go, I had some misgivings about the wisdom of what was about to transpire.

Every table featured a really large map of Salem.

We were supposed to affix colored stickers to the map showing where we wanted various features: Urban Center, Mixed Use, Urban Neighborhood, Neighborhood Hub, Residential Neighborhood, Commercial, Office, Industrial, Community Services, Open Space.

There was more complexity to the exercise than this, including the ability to trade stickers in certain ways, but I'm going to focus on the simple positive results of the workshop.

Namely, some really interesting discussions about what could be improved in Salem -- a vast subject, certainly. I've had a Salem address since 1977, thirteen years inside the city limits, the rest of the time nearby in rural south Salem.

I've complained constantly about what bugs me about Salem. Yet along with my wife, I've continued to live here because there's so much to like about our town.

Early on, Eunice Kim, the Our Salem project manager, stopped by our table and asked how things were going.

I was still in my dubious frame of mind, so I told her that I wasn't sure if this exercise was going to get at what people really want to have changed in Salem, since ordinary citizens don't think the way a city planner does. They just know what they like and don't like about a town.

Pleasingly, Kim pointed out something that probably was stated in the opening remarks, but I failed to take adequate notice of -- a big white space on the map where Big Ideas could be jotted down. 

Ooh, Big Ideas! I like! Kim wrote down some of what I and my table mates said. Here's how that section looked by the end of the workshop.

I brought up the bike infrastructure, where "separate" indicates my desire for a large network of dedicated bike paths that are physically distinct from the roads vehicles travel on. If that requires doing away with a traffic lane on busy streets like Commercial, Liberty, and such, so be it.

Build it and the bicyclists will come.

Here's a photo of people at my table working away on our sticker-affixing job. It was surprisingly interesting and enjoyable. It took about 15 minutes of the hour devoted to Map Activity for us to talk enough about what we valued to get into the swing of plunking stickers down here and there.

We were so into Mixed Use, we had to do some trading of other stickers a few times.

My special sticker interest was Neighborhood Hub, defined as "Mostly single-family homes with neighborhood scale businesses." It'd be great if every residential neighborhood had a restaurant, tavern, small grocery store, or such within easy walking distance.

That's how Salem used to be in the old days. Let's bring those days back.

The last half hour of the workshop was dedicated to each table talking about their map, which was held up at the front of the room. It was great to see that everyone had pretty much the same vision for Salem, which would be a much improved city.

Here's some key themes and specific ideas that I jotted down from what the table reporters said.

-- Mass transit should be easily accessible in every neighborhood. Let's add a trolley system to our bus system.
-- Mixed use needs to be much more common, a mix of residential and employment in walkable areas.
-- Walking and bicycling paths/trails need to be well connected all over town.
-- The aforementioned Neighborhood Hubs will be gathering places for people.
-- Put mixed use next to the Willamette, a river that should be a focus for Salem, not an afterthought.
-- Reclaim the mall for the public good (not sure which mall was being referred to).
-- Have a year-round public market.

This is the map my table came up with.

Along with other tables, we had blue lines (dedicated bike paths) along many streets, including all of downtown.  The many purple stickers are Mixed Use. West Salem and East Salem got quite a bit of attention from us. More businesses and employment opportunities are needed in West Salem, while the Lancaster Drive area needs a heavy dose of redevelopment focused on Mixed Use.

I'll end by observing that what people at last night's workshop wanted Salem to become bore a striking resemblance to the Salem Futures project that was killed by cluesless conservatives in the early 2000s.

Given the current progressive-majority makeup of the City Council, hopefully that won't happen with the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update.

Place your City Council bets on Sally Cook's replacement

OK, so far as I know there's no betting odds on who will be chosen to replace Sally Cook on the Salem City Council. 

But it's still entertaining to make predictions.

Twelve people applied to be appointed to serve as the Ward 7 councilor for the remainder of Cook's term, which ends on December 31, 2020. One person dropped out, which left eleven.

According to a City of Salem staff report, on October 10 the Board and Commission Appointments Committee met to discuss the applicants. They chose three to be interviewed at a special meeting of the City Council on October 21, a week from today.

Then the council will vote on who becomes the Ward 7 councilor, which will obviously give that person an advantage if they choose to run for a full term in the May 2020 primary election that usually determines City Council elections.

(If a candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, they win outright, making the "primary" the final election.)

Here's my take on the three finalists, ordering them in terms of their likelihood to be chosen by the current eight-member City Council.

Reid Sund -- 10% chance. Sund has several things working against him, so likely I'm being generous in giving him 1 in 10 odds of being appointed to Cook's seat. 

(1) Soon after Cook announced she was resigning following her husband's untimely death, Sund announced he would run for the Ward 7 seat. This probably hurts rather than helps his chance of being appointed on October 21, since he has already said he plans to be on the ballot in May 2020.

(2) Sund appears to be the most conservative of the three finalists. Given the City Council's 5-3 progressive/conservative split at the moment, with Cook's seat vacant, he doesn't seem to be the person the progressives will want to replace Cook, who is a progressive.

(3) He's a man. I've got nothing against men, being one myself, but with only two women on the Council at the moment, choosing a man to replace Cook would be problematic.

(4) He didn't put a whole lot of effort into his application for the appointment. His answer to question #8 about the most important issues facing Salem was weak.

Bonnie Heitsch -- 40% chance. Heitsch is a woman. She's about to retire from being an attorney with the Oregon Department of Justice, where she represented the Department of Transportation for 20 years. The Salem Breakfast on Bikes blogger liked what she said in her application about getting around in Salem.

Indeed, Heitsch had some appealing ideas.

Providing transportation alternatives including improved transit and improving walking connections and reconsideration of some land use patterns. I am pleased to see that Salem Transit has restored Saturday and evening bus service with the enactment of the payroll tax. But additional planning actions may be able to support options to walk and bike to essential services and destinations. School children should be able to walk safely to their neighborhood school and parks. And selfishly, as a soon to be Senior citizen, my car may not always be an option for me and I would like to develop the transportation support for me and others for our future.

Vanessa Nordyke -- 50% chance. I've met Nordyke several times and have heard her speak. She's impressive: intelligent, compassionate, well-informed, with lots of volunteer experience. I'd give her higher odds than 50%, but I'm trying to compensate for the fact that Nordyke is my favorite candidate.

Also an attorney with the Department of Justice, she's proficient in Spanish, which is a decided plus. Her application checks off some progressive priorities and includes an intriguing question about telecommuting.

How can we incentivize renewable energy, green spaces, tree canopy, walkable neighborhoods and affordable housing while still being fiscally responsible with taxpayer dollars? Are we incentivizing employers to allow one-day-a-week telecommuting...to reduce traffic and greenhouse gas emissions?

So my bet is that Nordyke will be appointed on October 21. However, it wouldn't be a big shock if Heitsch gets the nod, as she also seems to be well-qualified to serve on the City Council.

Vanessa Nordyke

Salem River Crossing project officially dead, says ODOT

OK, this is akin to beating a dead horse twice, since I'd previously noted that the Oregon Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration had issued a "No Build" Record of Decision. 

But today ODOT sent out a news release that deserves to be commemorated, given the excellent news that it contains. The Billion Dollar Boondoggle that would have saddled Salem with vastly increased transportation costs with no real benefit for downtown rush hour congestion is officially dead.

The Salem River Crossing, or Third Bridge, was a terrible idea that took a long time to die. But thanks to steadfast opposition by citizens, and a wise Salem City Council, we can now say goodbye to a project that consumed lots of money, time, and effort for no good reason.

Hopefully City of Salem officials will learn something from this debacle: this is the 21st century, not 1950. Global warming is real. Building unneeded roads and bridges always has been a bad idea. Now it is a horrible idea that can't be tolerated if our planet is to remain fit for human habitation.

Here's the text of the news release.

SALEM— The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have published a combined Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) for the NO Build Alternative on the Salem River Crossing Project. This final step officially ends this effort to construct a 3^rd bridge over the Willamette River in Salem.

The FEIS and ROD are available at https://www.oregon.gov/odot/projects/pages/project-details.aspx?project=17317.

• • Copies of the document will also be available for review at the following locations:
  • Salem Public Works Department
  • Salem Library
  • Keizer Community Development Department
  • Polk County Community Development Department
  • Marion County Public Works Department
  • Independence Library
  • ODOT Region 2 Headquarters

ODOT and FHWA selected the No Build alternative because the Salem City Council chose to not respond to a Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) remand of their 2016 land use actions in support of the project. Without the City addressing the LUBA remand, the project team could not complete the Final EIS for the preferred alternative.

Earlier this year, in a Salem City Council work session, 6 of the 9 council members opposed responding to the LUBA appeal.   This decision had the net effect of reversing the 2016 land use actions and withdrawing City support for advancing the FEIS with a build recommendation.

The project officially started in 2006 after the City of Salem and other regional partners approached ODOT and FHWA with a request to begin the environment process to build a 3^rd bridge. The partners comprised of the cities of Salem, Keizer, Marion and Polk counties, the Salem Area Mass Transit District and ODOT.

In 2014, the partners endorsed the “Salem Alternative,” which Salem City Council had recommended as the preferred alternative. The necessary land use approvals were granted by the partners and the Salem City Council adopted its final ordinance. However, project opponents appealed the City’s land use approvals to LUBA. LUBA considered the issues appealed and remanded the City’s previously approved land use actions back to the City to address.

Without the city addressing the technical issues required by LUBA, ODOT and FHWA could not publish the FEIS for the identified preferred alternative. The only option was to file the No Build Alternative thereby ending this effort to build a 3^rd bridge.

Tell City officials you want Battle Creek Park to be left natural

As you can read below, the City of Salem is working on a master plan for Battle Creek Park, which now is undeveloped. Lora Meisner clued me in to what's going on with the 50+ acres.

I've shared part of an email where she urges people to express their preference for Option 1: Habitat, since this fits best with the original purpose of this property after the City bought it -- flood control/stormwater retention.

As Meisner says, it doesn't make sense to build large impervious features like a skate park and 60 car parking lot, given that this will lead to more runoff, thereby working against the primary goal of giving the water coming from four creeks that feed into Battle Creek Park a safe place to go, rather than flooding homes and businesses.

I urge you to email Patricia Farrell, the Parks and Natural Resources Planning Manager, and tell her that you support "Option 1 Habitat" for Battle Creek Park. [email protected]

 Light blue is flood retention area. Dark blue is riparian zones. 

From an email Lora Meisner sent me:

The former Battle Creek Golf Course that has an elementary school on part of the property is now in the midst of a Master Plan process under the city parks department. This 50+ acres has become a grassland and tree-filled area for birds, wildlife etc. -- quiet and nature-filled. But most importantly the property is needed for flood control and storm water management.

This property was purchased by the city with funds for storm water management and a very small portion with park/rec funds. The Battle Creek storm water basin is comprised of 12 square miles and several creeks that converge and feed into Battle Creek on the Battle Creek Park property. 

Most residents in downtown Salem as well as Turner who experience flooding are totally unaware of the importance and significance of this property. The potential design of this property could also affect flooding and groundwater in Marion County.

Jory Creek feeds into Battle Creek above Creekside, then Powell, Waln, and Scotch creeks converge on the property into Battle Creek which runs under I-5, makes a right turn into Turner and then a left turn into Mill Creek which runs into downtown Salem. This is what floods Turner and downtown. 

It’s important that everyone understands that the least amount of Battle Creek park development — less recreational, less impervious surfaces — will best preserve it as a storm water detention area. The flood water, as in 2012, sheets across this property and slowly penetrates into the ground and into the streams.

For the park planning process, “Option 1: Habitat” leaves the property in the most unadulterated state.  

To repeat, I urge you to email Patricia Farrell, the Parks and Natural Resources Planning Manager, and tell her that you support "Option 1 Habitat" for Battle Creek Park. [email protected]

Here's a description of the three options that I copied from a City of Salem web page about the Battle Creek Park planning process. Another page shows photos, maps, and other information about the options that was presented at an open house. 

I've indicated in green the features of each option that seem especially environmentally friendly. Features in red seem especially environmentally unfriendly, given that a prime purpose of the park property is to be a wetlands and stormwater retention area.

Sure, a skate park and disc golf course, along with playgrounds and a picnic shelter, would be appealing to some people. But leaving the park as natural as possible seems to be the best way for it to meet the needs of most people. 

I like to toss a frisbee (or disc) around. Throughout my life I've done this on grass or sand, no disc golf course required. Ditto for playing outside of school when I was young. Having grown up in a rural area, there weren't any nearby playgrounds. So -- shock! -- us kids figured out how to play on our own in nature.

I realize times have changed. Still, I much prefer Option 1: Habitat because the focus is on open areas and trails, not a skate park, disc golf course, and playgrounds.

So please email Patricia Farrell, the Parks and Natural Resources Planning Manager, and tell her that you support "Option 1 Habitat" for Battle Creek Park. [email protected]

Here's the three options.

Option 1: Habitat

The focus is on the natural and habitat elements of the park and flood retention, with a focus on passive recreation opportunities such as paved and soft trails.  Features include:

• • Constructed flood retention basins
  • Enhanced wetlands for wildlife habitat
  • Small overlook for viewing constructed flood retention basin
  • Paved trails: approximately 7,377 lineal feet or about 1.4 miles
  • Soft surface trails: approximately 1,378 lineal feet or about 0.25 miles
  • Play/fitness stations
  • A small parking lot to accommodate 15 vehicles off Waln Drive SE
  • Small restroom - two stalls
  • Small outdoor classroom (earth form) near Battle Creek Elementary School
  • No picnic shelter
  • No skate park
  • No disc golf
  • No playground

Option 2: Recreation

The focus is on recreation uses that are compatible with flood retention. Features include:

• • Constructed flood retention basins
  • Large overlook for viewing constructed basins
  • A year-round 18-hole disc golf course in the upland portion of the park
  • Paved trails: approximately 6,500 lineal feet or about 1.23 miles
  • Soft surface trails: approximately 2,866 lineal feet or about 0.53 miles
  • Fitness stations
  • Large parking lot to accommodate 60 vehicles off Waln Drive SE
  • Large restroom – six stalls
  • Interpretative trail near Battle Creek Elementary School
  • Small outdoor classroom (shelter) near Battle Creek Elementary School
  • Neighborhood playground near Doral Street SE
  • Picnic shelter near Waln Drive SE
  • Community playground near Waln Drive SE
  • 15,000 sq. ft. skate park near Waln Drive SE

Option 3: Blended

The focus is on balancing recreation and natural elements while also providing flood retention. Features include:

• • Constructed flood retention basins
  • Medium-sized overlook for viewing constructed basins
  • Paved trails: approximately 6,433 lineal feet or about 1.22 miles
  • Soft surface trails: approximately 2,295 lineal feet or about 0.43 miles
  • Play/fitness stations
  • Medium-sized parking lot to accommodate 30 vehicles off Waln Drive SE
  • Medium-sized restroom – four stalls
  • Small outdoor classroom area near Battle Creek Elementary School
  • Interpretative trail near Battle Creek Elementary School
  • Picnic shelter near Waln Drive SE
  • Community playground near Waln Drive SE
  • 5,000 sq. ft. skate park near Waln Drive SE
  • 3-hole disc golf course in upland, plus seasonal 6-hole disk golf in a constructed flood retention basin
  • Sculpted earth mounds

Seven strange things about the City of Salem's "Urban Forestergate"

These days every scandalous revelation pertaining to public officials demands a name that ends in "gate."

So I'm calling the tell-all report of an applicant for the City of Salem's (Oregon) Urban Forester position Urban Forestergate. Yeah, not very creative. But it works for me.

Yesterday I shared the applicant's report of a three-day visit to Salem from New York at the City of Salem's expense in "Devastating critique of Salem's Urban Forester program by a job applicant."

Today I talked with this person by phone and got additional details about their job interview/audition experience in Salem.

I found myself saying That's really strange so often, I decided to fashion this follow-up blog post from a list of some of the stranger strangenesses that the applicant (who wishes to remain anonymous, but obviously is known to City officials) conveyed to me in their original message and today's phone conversation. 

Of course, I have doubts about whether anybody at the City of Salem really cares about all this. There have been well-documented problems involving how City officials mismanage our town's urban trees for many years.

Yet Public Works Director Peter Fernandez remains in charge of the Urban Forestry program. City Manager Steve Powers, Mayor Chuck Bennett, and the City Council haven't done much to improve things. So I could be whistling in the blog post wind. 

But the applicant for the Urban Forester position sees serious problems with how trees are cared for in Salem, and so do I. Thus some whistling is called for, even if it goes unheard by those in power at City Hall. 

Here's seven strange things about Urban Forestergate. I'm framing them as questions that someone at the City of Salem should be asking (though like I said, City officials may very well ignore the questions).

(1) Why is it so difficult to fill this position? I'm not sure when the Urban Forester position opening was announced. Regardless, no certified arborist was hired after the first batch of applicants was assessed. Now the position is open again for a two-week period, September 24 to October 7. It seems strange that no qualified Urban Forester candidate was found to work in a state known for its trees and livability. 

(2) Is Peter Fernandez looking for a malleable person who won't disagree with him? This was the conclusion of the person who spent three days in Salem interviewing for the Urban Forester position. It fits with the reputation of Fernandez as someone who is avidly pro-development and anti-tree preservation. It may well be that competent independent fact-based arborists are being passed over until Fernandez finds a lackey who will comply with his tree-cutting desires.

(3) Is Jennifer Kellar qualified to be the Parks and Recreation Services manager? The applicant found her spectacularly uninformed and inexperienced regarding trees and parks. Maybe she's better at recreation. Was there an open process for filling her position, or did Peter Fernandez choose her on his own not for her qualifications, but because he knew she wouldn't challenge him? Inquiring minds would like to know.

(4) Why does Salem have such a pitiful Urban Forestry program? Salem has a history of allowing significant trees, including protected white oaks, to be cut down for no good reason. The City of Salem devotes few resources to its Urban Forestry program compared to other comparable cities, according to the applicant. Yet trees are a top priority of residents. Why such a difference between citizen expectations and reality?

(5) How often does the City of Salem pay the travel expenses for a job applicant? The applicant I talked with today had passed on interviewing for other arborist positions on the West Coast because it would cost too much to fly from New York. Yet after a Skype interview, the City of Salem paid for this person's airfare, car rental, and lodging at the Grand Hotel. They were appreciative of this. But how common is it?

(6) Is it typical to not tell a job applicant if they were hired, or not? I asked the applicant what happened after his three-day trip from New York to Salem for an interview at the City of Salem's expense. I was told that no one ever contacted him one way or the other. Meaning, he wasn't notified if he got the Urban Forester job. Of course, the position has been re-opened. But if City officials want to attract high quality candidates, they should treat them fairly and openly.

(7) Is using crutches temporarily a no-no for a City of Salem job applicant? Among other strange things the applicant described about their interview/audition process was feeling "quiet nervous freakout energy" when they met the interview team for the first time after arriving in Salem -- walking in with the aid of crutches. Reportedly the applicant had told City staff about a foot injury that necessitated the use of crutches temporarily. Plus, the Urban Forester position doesn't require the ability to climb trees. Not putting the applicant at ease seems like a decided lack of courtesy at best, and possible discrimination, at worst.

I'll end by saying that part of my phone conversation with the Urban Forester applicant involved some talk about the difference between New York and Oregon styles of communicating. 

I like New York-style bluntness. That was on display in the applicant's message to me that I shared yesterday where they criticized numerous aspects of Salem's Urban Forestry program and the competence of people involved with it in a pleasingly direct manner. 

Personally, and I know quite a few local tree-lovers who agree with me, I'd prefer to have a rather abrasive Urban Forester who goes all out to preserve, protect, and plant trees, than a "yes man" or "yes woman" who goes along with what their superiors at the City of Salem want to have happen, tree-wise, even if it is detrimental to our town's urban forest.

What worries me, and also the applicant, is that City officials in charge of hiring the next Urban Forester seem to be more concerned with finding a team player who won't make waves, rather than the most qualified and competent person for this job.

Will the City Manager step in and oversee the hiring process? I doubt it, given the lack of interest Steve Powers has shown in having a strong Urban Forestry program so far. But I could be wrong. I hope that I am.

Devastating critique of Salem's Urban Forester program by a job applicant

It's an open secret to those of us who live here that the City of Salem doesn't treat our town's trees well, to put it mildly.

But I was pleasantly surprised that a highly qualified person who applied for the City's Urban Forester position saw through the bullshit of City officials during a three-day job application visit and came to the same conclusion.

You can read that person's critique below. It's devastating.

Hopefully it will wake up the City Manager (Steve Powers), the Mayor (Chuck Bennett), and city councilors to the fact that Peter Fernandez, the Public Works Director, has been doing a lousy, unethical, sleazy job and should be fired.

Yeah, I'm biased.

I wrote a tell-out report about how Fernandez engaged in a back-room deal with the bank president to have the five beautiful, healthy, large U.S. Bank trees cut down for no good reason in 2013. The photo above shows how two of the trees looked before Fernandez and Ryan Allbritton colluded on the trees' needless destruction. 

And here's what Fernandez and Allbritton did to them in an outrageous display of screw you to the citizens of Salem and tree lovers everywhere.

Yet as you'll read below, Peter Fernandez and his hand-picked lackies are still running Salem's urban forestry program in a self-serving fashion that leaves Salem's trees unprotected by competence and caring.

Recently the City of Salem re-opened applications for the Urban Forester position this person applied for, apparently because they couldn't find a yes-man or yes-woman willing to look the other way while City officials trash our trees.

I learned about this from a post on the Salem Tree Advocates Facebook page, which got a number of comments, two of which (one from me) are shown in the screenshot below.

With that background, here's the impressions of a certified arborist who emailed me two days ago with the provocative message subject line, "Rotten in Denmark," and this offer -- which I unhesitatingly took him up on.

Hey Brian, I'm an arborist who spent three days in Salem (love your town, btw) to interview for the city arborist position... not at all what the brochure promised. I'd be happy to share my observations, especially how they relate to the Salem forestry dept, Peter Fernandez and Jennifer Keller and your urban canopy. Salem is in trouble. 

*********************

MESSAGE FROM AN APPLICANT TO BE SALEM'S URBAN FORESTER:

The purpose of my contact is to shed light on a potential problem. My personal opinion regarding the Forestry Dept at Salem Parks & Rec/Public Works is that it doesn't exist.

THERE IS ZERO TRANSPARENCY AND EVEN LESS ACCOUNTABILITY!

The department has been hollowed out and staffed with unqualified, lazy, jaded people trying to live on the dole of municipal employment. I'm merely presenting my observations and experiences of fact.

The Manager of Parks & Rec, Jennifer Kellar, was appointed by Peter Fernandez. She has no degree in horticulture, forestry, urban forestry or parks management. She was in accounting or something like that before being drafted into service by Fernandez. Apparently no attempt was made to fill the vacancy in a competitive manner.

The Acting Urban Forester is the only forestry inspector for the department. Let's pretend Jan Staszewski were still around, that would be two inspectors.

When I worked in Brooklyn, just a little bigger than Salem with much less arable land, we had about fifteen inspectors in the field at any given time performing the normal tasks... hazardous tree inspections, responding to tree related emergencies, contractor inspection (pruning, removal, stump cutting, planting, sidewalks, various inventories, construction site monitoring, pre-construction plan review, vandalism investigation, expert testimony -- all of which I've done, incidentally).

I'm not even counting the thirty-six climbers which constitute six crews on the production side of the wall (Game of Thrones metaphor). Salem has only four, not four crews... four crew personnel. That's not even one full crew.

Before I arrived I had no trouble finding Tom Bradley, the only inspector and acting Urban Forester, in the office, apparently where he spends the bulk of his time. As I drove down from Portland the day I arrived for my day of interviews, I phoned Kellar to give her a progress report, etc.

Mr. Bradley was still in his office. I know this because Kellar got up during our conversation to close the door so she could totally trash Bradley to the prospective new department head while he was just in the next office.... classy.

Still, (1) why is this guy in the office with soooo much to be done? (2) Why is the Department Director/Manager throwing her key people under the bus? (3) How does such a blatantly unqualified person such as Kellar get such a critical position? (4) Why was her position never put out for announcement whether open/competitive or at least internal announcement (could Peter Fernandez be building a cult of personality)?

Incidentally, the next day as part of my interview-audition itinerary, I spent time first with Mr. Bradley and then stepped in to say thanks/etc. at the end of this day. He was STILL in his office doing the same thing as earlier.... performing service request inspections via Google Street View. (In fairness, it's a valid ancillary tool, but really??? see the second line of this paragraph.)

During my drive-around tour of a couple parks, I apparently offended Bradley and a horticultural supervisor. They were expertly describing the importance of the local white oaks and hypersensitive political climate that surrounded their preservation.

This is nothing new to me and seemed like a good conversation as I have a little experience in parks with high patronage and high arboricultural maintenance priorities. So I asked what were the greatest threats they faced to preserve and care for these trees. Were they biotic or abiotic???

The hort guy said that Armillaria was the primary cause of the root rot that plagued the white oaks. He mentioned injections was the only treatment. (Actually there is no way to "cure" Armillaria. It can only be managed. These include quarantine, root collar and aeration/airspading, properly sanitizing tools, injection and ultimately removal of the infected tree).

I asked if the forestry/hort departments used any non-invasive diagnostic tests to examine high priority trees such as heritage trees or trees in high target settings for the existence of the offending fungus and if the department owned any of these diagnostic tools. I specifically asked about the use of acoustic tomagraphy or even the common resistograph because of their proven efficacy.

The hort guy and Bradley bristled with thinly veiled anger when they responded defensively. No was the answer (for perspective, an analog resistograph costs a little over $2k yet the department spent almost $2k to bring me to Salem for the interview, hmmmm.....)

OK.... I tried to change the subject away from the biotic threat to the abiotic cause of white oak decline in Salem, which I knew would most likely be soil compaction and high moisture. I was correct.

Kellar, Bradley and the hort supervisor told me that the second greatest threat to these treasures were Armillaria root rot and soil compaction...... they literally said this as they turned the tour van around driving on the root plates in a stand of large white oaks in the lawn beside a path. Yeah, you heard me.

My next stop was a meet and greet luncheon with Tom Bradley, Jake Snell, Noe Marquez, Tibby Larson, Jennifer Kellar, Patricia Farrell, Peter Fernandez and Robert Chandler....

Something was off from the first contact after my initial Skype interview where they offered (without my prompting) to pay my way out and back to interview/audition.... hotel, car and flight from NYC to PDX. This is unheard of... I've had to decline second interviews in San Francisco, Portland and Seattle (yes, love the PNW) for logistical challenge reasons.

So yeah, I could see it if my last name was Shigo or even Bunyan. But this was such a flag on the play. Online resources I found were news videos of emergency trees down with the last City Forester (JS) caught on camera speaking to another city forestry employee remarking about "I reckon we're gonna be liable for this..." Really, bad form!

Then there was the white oak on the house whose root plate was cut in half because the road was built literally right up to the root flare of the tree and the cause of the failure was a mystery.... Reference back to "normal tasks" in line two of paragraph three.... or the two 100 year old sequoias removed without permit, (see "tasks"), but then there are the five US Bank removals.....

I'm an experienced professional with a couple of decades in arboriculture in both the private sector and NPO/Municipal/Urban Forestry experience to my credit.

As soon as I read the article I knew the truth behind the story. The bank manager wanted a "vista prune" down to grade, so he called Peter Fernandez. What did people think was going to happen if tree pits are installed in the sidewalk at construction (see "tasks") and those big green things are stuck where they're designed to be???

From the photos, I couldn't see any sort of defect and Google Streets showed these trees needed nothing more than pruning (see, time and place for all tools!).  But then they send out a pack of slack-jawed mouth-breathing hacks to do the removals in a JLG/cherry picker??? The only thing missing were red ball caps! This offended me on many levels. So yes, I had Pete's number before I packed a bag.

I'm going to stop there... I love the PNW and would give an organ to live and work there. Salem is outstanding and worth fighting for. I live in New York. I know corruption, I see it every day. Salem still has a chance to fix its issues. I give you this information for you to use or not use.

Peter Fernandez says that there is no way to cause the roughly eight different neighborhood groups to cooperate with city codes regarding trees, but rather he could only encourage neighborhood cooperation by "pandering". I took this to mean that he wanted cart blanche to exploit the urban forestry program without consequence for his own agenda.

That's why, under the highly experienced and professional leadership of Jennifer Kellar, you have no department at all. There is no tree ordinance, just some rules in the city codes...this isn't a tree ordinance. No inspections seem to be getting done because un-permited removals, etc happen regularly.

There seems to be no foresight or planning because most of the street trees are red maples. What if Salem experiences a host specific event like the asian long horned beetle infestation or dutch elm disease??? I've been an inspector on the ALB quarantine in Ohio and seen full host species removal. Everybody loses!

A large portion of the city doesn't have even 20% canopy cover, WTF??? There is no street tree inventory.... The tree census is literally an "educated guess".... There's only a partial crew, one lame, lazy inspector, no urban forester, apparently absent when he was there, and a nervous, untrained, inexperienced and unqualified leader who was gifted the job, fulfilling no qualification other than doing whatever she was told by her boss.

I don't know it for a fact that Tom Bradley is a lazy agoraphobic arborist, I just know it's true.

I don't know it for a fact that Jennifer Kellar acquired and keeps her position by assuming any position, I just know it's true.

I don't know it for a fact that Peter Fernandez is an unaccountable manipulative micro-managing weasel using the good will of the citizens of Salem for his own personal gain, I just know it's true.

Bottom line, This guy came from Miami, saw Salem as something fuckable and has been fucking it ever since. Bon chance Salem...

***************************

[Note: like me, the arborist who wrote this message is a fan of Bill Maher, who has a recurring comedic bit on his HBO Real Time show with the theme of "I don't know it for a fact, I just know it's true."]

Warren Binford talks about horror of migrant child detention center

It wasn't the cheeriest City Club talk I've ever been to, but it was one of the most important.

Warren Binford, from my seat at a City Club table

Today Warren Binford, a Willamette University law professor and children's rights expert, spoke about the history of child separations at the Mexican border and her four day visit to the Clint, Texas Border Patrol Facility.

Binford told us that the Clint facility, better termed a child warehouse, was built for about 100 adults, yet housed around 400 children. 

When asked "How have you been treated," they started to cry. Binford spoke with a 14 year old girl who was holding a tiny child. A seven year old girl was with the teenager. She wouldn't talk. The 14 year old didn't know either of the other children. Children arriving at the detention center are asked to care for other children.

Shameful? Of course. Sadly, the shame has been on display for many years, though the Trump administration has raised it to new heights. 

Binford described the lengthy history of what led up to, and followed, the Flores order -- a Supreme Court decision regarding the detention and release of unaccompanied children at the border. 

She started off her talk by asking people to read the testimony of some of those children, which had been printed on postcards, all with a different testimony, that had been left on City Club tables. I brought three cards home. 

Here's what those children said:

"At La Perrera, I was separated from mother over our objections. I was very worried and frightened because I was put with strangers." -- Maybeline, 13, El Salvador

"I let my mom know that I was getting sick. But there was nothing she could do." -- Ducesa, 12, Romania

"On the second day we were at the Hielera, they took my mother away from me and had her speak to someone on the phone, but they were speaking Spanish to her and my mother does not speak Spanish. I tried to go to her to translate for her, but they would not let me help my mom. They kept me away from her so she could not communicate our claim for asylum." -- Karla, 15, Guatemala

I was surprised to hear Binford say that these words came from a 1985 lawsuit against the Reagan administration, which alleged that children were being used as bait to get their parents. That case went on for 12 years.

Thus injustices against migrant children and their parents have been occurring in both Republican and Democratic administrations. 

However, what Binford and other advocates experienced at the Clint detention center this year must be at the Worst end of the child detention outrage scale. She said that the children there got little to eat, so were always hungry. Kool-aid was given at every meal. No milk. No fruit.

"We as a nation are in danger of losing our humanity," Binford said.

There was an outbreak of lice at the detention center. The staff told children to share the brushes and combs that had been given to them, which, of course, is a terrible way to handle a lice infestation. After a comb went missing, a staff member took away their bedding and made them sleep on a bare concrete floor.

Some of the children at Clint were being held in a windowless warehouse.

Binford visited the detention center in June 2019. A July story in the New York Times, "Hungry, Scared, and Sick: Inside the Migrant Detention Center in Clint, Tex." echoes what we heard at the City Club meeting today.

Here's how that story starts out:

CLINT, Tex. — Since the Border Patrol opened its station in Clint, Tex., in 2013, it was a fixture in this West Texas farm town. Separated from the surrounding cotton fields and cattle pastures by a razor-wire fence, the station stood on the town’s main road, near a feed store, the Good News Apostolic Church and La Indita Tortillería. Most people around Clint had little idea of what went on inside. Agents came and went in pickup trucks; buses pulled into the gates with the occasional load of children apprehended at the border, four miles south.

But inside the secretive site that is now on the front lines of the southwest border crisis, the men and women who work there were grappling with the stuff of nightmares.

Outbreaks of scabies, shingles and chickenpox were spreading among the hundreds of children and adults who were being held in cramped cells, agents said. The stench of the children’s dirty clothing was so strong it spread to the agents’ own clothing — people in town would scrunch their noses when they left work. The children cried constantly. One girl seemed likely enough to try to kill herself that the agents made her sleep on a cot in front of them, so they could watch her as they were processing new arrivals.

“It gets to a point where you start to become a robot,” said a veteran Border Patrol agent who has worked at the Clint station since it was built. He described following orders to take beds away from children to make more space in holding cells, part of a daily routine that he said had become “heartbreaking.”

Binford ended her talk by telling us what we could do to help. Here's the photo I took of her slide.

Binford also encouraged people to write op-ed opinion pieces for their local newspaper.

Of course, dumping Trump in 2020 is the best long-term strategy to help migrant children, since the Trump administration has been extremely anti-migrant, goings so far as to willfully separate children from their parents in a hope that this would discourage asylum seekers and others from entering the United States.

I was wrong about the wisdom of impeachment. Go for it, Dems!

Time in this age of Trumpism is a lot like "dog years." It passes seven times (at least) more quickly than what I've been used to in every other presidential administration.

Only last Sunday -- which now seems like two months ago, rather than only two days -- I was opining to a friend at our usual get-together at West Salem's Urban Grange coffee house that I hoped Democrats would take the advice of Nancy Pelosi and make the 2020 election an impeachment of sorts.

I said the Dems should tell voters, "Here's the horrible stuff that Trump has done. We're going to leave it to you to carry out what amounts to impeachment, by voting him out of office in November 2020."

That made sense to me then. Now, I'm all in on impeachment.

As is Pelosi, seemingly, since today she announced that the House is beginning an impeachment inquiry into what Trump has wrought during his scandal-plagued presidency. 

Notably, his attempt to pressure the president of Ukraine to investigate non-existent wrongdoing by Joe Biden's son, Hunter, during his stint on a board of directors of a Ukraine corporation. Also, the non-existent wrongdoing by Joe Biden when he urged that a prosecutor be removed who was failing to look into genuine cases of corruption in Ukraine.

The Washington Post has a great story about how Rudy Giuiani worked mightily at this attempt to smear Joe Biden and hurt his chances of winning the Democratic presidential nomination.

And the New York Times has a cogent analysis of why Trump's self-admitted attempt to get a foreign government to interfere in the 2020 election has pushed Pelosi and other Democrats over the impeachment cliff. Or at least, the impeachment inquiry cliff.

For months, dozens of House Democrats anxiously avoided even the mention of impeaching President Trump — right up until the moment that they demanded it.

The sudden embrace of an impeachment inquiry by previously reluctant House Democrats — most notably Speaker Nancy Pelosi — is attributable to one fundamental fact: They believe the new accusations against Mr. Trump are simple and serious enough to be grasped by a public overwhelmed by the constant din of complex charges and countercharges that has become the norm in today’s Washington.

In contrast to the murkiness of the special counsel’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible obstruction of justice by Mr. Trump, Democrats see the current allegations as damningly clear-cut.

His refusal so far to provide Congress with an intelligence official’s whistle-blower complaint as required by law, coupled with the possibility that Mr. Trump dangled American military aid as a bargaining chip to win investigation of a political rival by a foreign government, strikes them as a stark case of presidential wrongdoing.

They consider it egregious enough that they expect many Americans who had been cool to the idea of moving to oust the president to recognize the imperative for the House to act.

Makes sense. 

The Mueller report didn't have enough impeachment octane in it. Sure, Trump obstructed justice. But he does that all the time, and it would have been too easy for Trump and his cronies to say "there was no underlying crime to obstruct." Which is true, though legally obstruction doesn't require a crime.

Now, though, Trump appears guilty of having blatantly done what the Mueller report danced around: an attempt to collude with a foreign power to influence an election. And it is clear that Trump himself was behind this attempt, not people in the Trump orbit.

This indeed is a much stronger basis for impeachment, which is as much a political exercise as a legal one. It's telling that few, if any, Republicans are defending what Trump said to the president of Ukraine.

Sure, they aren't criticizing Trump to the degree that they should. But the fact that the Senate voted unanimously to urge the release of the whistle-blower complaint to Congress shows that Ukraine is a more compelling Trump scandal than what Mueller investigated.

I deeply respect Nancy Pelosi's political acumen. Her willingness to get on board the impeachment train shows that she feels this has a greater probability of leading to Democratic victories in 2020 than defeats.

Of course, Pelosi could be wrong. If there's anything predictable in this Age of Trump, it is that nothing is predictable. Impeachment proceedings are full of high drama by their very nature. With Donald Trump involved, the drama will be on steroids. 

I've read several scary books about the Trump presidency. The best, which also could be termed the worst, is How Democracies Die. I say "worst," because the authors presented persuasive facts about how the United States is heading in the direction that leads to autocracy.

To me, that's the most compelling argument for the House to impeach Trump. The Senate won't go along, almost certainly. But the point isn't to remove Trump from office. Hopefully that will happen courtesy of the voters.

Rather, a strong message needs to be sent that the American people aren't going to sit idly by and watch while Trump destroys both written and unwritten norms of presidential behavior. We the people aren't going to tolerate brazen attempts to get Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election. Nor are we going to tolerate stonewalling of legitimate oversight by Congress into Trump administration wrongdoing.

My prediction, or at least my hope, is that impeachment will turn out to be a political plus for Democrats.

But even if it isn't, we have to contemplate which of these scenarios is more disturbing: (1) Trump wins re-election with few checks upon his worst instincts, or (2) Trump wins re-election after a spotlight has been cast on his sordid efforts to undermine our democracy.

Of course, best of all will be if Trump loses his re-election bid. I just believe we need to think of what would be the very worst political scenario, then work to mitigate its worseness.

Oregon Republican Party platform showcases GOP craziness

I'm a firm believer that Republicans here in Oregon are just about as extreme as those, say, in Alabama.

Members of the GOP in our state often just try to look moderate, because they know that with only 26% of registered voters in Oregon identifying as Republican, it's an uphill battle for them to win statewide elections.

(Democrats are at 35% and Non-affiliated are at 32%).

But I think Oregon Republicans should be proud of their extremism. Rock on, crazy conservatives! Don't hide your right-wingless. Flaunt it!

To that end, I'm pleased to share some highlights -- OK, for many, lowlights -- from the official 2019 platform of the Oregon Republican Party. You can read the whole thing by clicking below. 
Download Oregon Republican Party platform

This is what you're supporting if you vote for an Oregon Republican. I've added my own irreverent progressive take on each platform item in red. 
----------------------------
We support the full repeal of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and oppose any efforts to implement similar provisions at the state level.

Oregon GOP wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Plus, no health care replacement by Oregon. I guess praying to have your cancer cured is the Republican health care plan.

Marriage is between one man and one woman.

Who says? Not the United States Supreme Court. And not the many happily married same-sex couples in Oregon. The Republican Party is on the wrong side of both love and history.

There are only two sexes, male and female, based on a person’s biological sex at birth. We oppose unassigned gender identity at birth. We encourage the natural expression of those genders, masculine and feminine. We affirm that both are valuable in the raising of children.

Hmmmm. This goes against science, which finds a strong genetic component in the many varieties of sexual expression and attraction. Also, it sounds like the Oregon GOP is against same-sex couples raising children.

We believe individuals have the right to protect themselves, their livestock, and domesticated animals from predators, regardless of the predators’ species federal or state protection status.

Kill them wolves! Who cares if there are so few of them in Oregon, and so many cattle. 

Each Oregon educational facility should encourage trained district personnel to be armed in order to protect themselves and their students from violence. We oppose gun free zones.

Gosh, what could go wrong with teachers having guns in classrooms? Except, everything.

We support the delisting of species protected by the State or Federal Government at the earliest opportunity, based on the complete and timely implementation of the recovery plans or if there is a low probability of recovery.

I remember when conservatives actually believed in conservation. Those days are long gone. Endangered species are doubly endangered when Republicans are in control of government.

Every person has a fundamental right to life that begins at conception and endures to the natural conclusion of life. We strongly oppose abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, and assisted suicide, including any government funding of these deadly practices.

I also remember when abortion was illegal and women died from botched terminations of pregnancies. Is that a "natural conclusion of life"? Plus, Oregonians believe in the right of terminally ill people to choose assisted suicide when their suffering is too extreme. It's shameful that the GOP doesn't.

We oppose reintroduction or protection of any fish, wildlife, or plant species in Oregon unless there is valid, peer-reviewed scientific data and the consent of state and local government.

Sure, why not have the Harney County Board of Commissioners decide whether a species should go extinct in Oregon? (Answer, there are lots of reasons this is a really bad idea.)

It is the role of parents or legal guardians to direct topics of education concerning human sexuality, sexually transmitted diseases, birth control, ethics, and moral values. Governmental or public agencies shall obtain written permission before discussing sex and/or gender-related subjects with minor age children and shall not penalize families for opting out.

Sex education in schools is scary to Oregon Republicans. Maybe they should trust teachers more and their fundamentalist Christianity less.

Parents or legal guardians are the final authority in deciding what is best for their children; they must receive full disclosure and give written permission before any healthcare services, outside referrals, content, or materials are distributed to their children. No person shall be forced to undergo any healthcare services as a condition of school enrollment or attendance.

Like immunizations? Are you really that bad at medical science, Oregon GOP?

We support the constitutional protection of private property rights, including the rights of prospectors and small-scale miners.

Sure, people have a perfect right to ruin fish habitat and wreck the environment so they can play gold miner. NOT!

We oppose international environmental treaties or agreements with organizations using environmental issues for social engineering and/or global control.

Ooh, global control. Scary! Except the leaders of almost every nation on Earth support efforts to fight global warming other than our Idiot-in-Chief, Donald Trump.

We believe that no corporation should be above the law. We do not support bailouts; businesses should be allowed to succeed or fail.

Hey, I hope Trump pays attention to this platform item of the Oregon GOP. He's determined to save the failing coal industry, and give bailouts to farmers being hurt by his trade wars.

We affirm that the President of the United States must adhere to the constitutional separation of powers by seeking and receiving Congressional authorization for any act of war and by seeking and receiving Senate approval for any treaty.

Wow, another platform item I agree with. Trump can't go to war against Iran, or any other country, without Congressional authorization. 

Why homelessness is an absurd problem, philosophically

Being human is tough.

We're subjective creatures, as are all other animals. Yet unlike our fellow primates with whom we're closely related, us Homo sapiens possess a strong capacity for objectivity -- seeing the world from a perspective largely, though not completely, distinct from our personal viewpoint.

Many social problems are difficult to perceive clearly given the often-blurry double vision that comes with our twin capacity for empathetic subjectivity and detached objectivity.

Homelessness is one such problem.

I got to thinking about this after finishing a book by philosopher Thomas Nagel today, The View From Nowhere. Nagel is more famous for his "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" essay, but this book addresses some of the same questions surrounding objective and subjective views of reality.

In a concluding chapter, Nagel says, "So the absurd is part of human life."

He isn't talking about absurdity in the sense of ridiculousness. Rather, it is the consequence of people being capable of seeing things both from inside our own mind, and by extension the minds of others, and allso from a more objective view from nowhere.

Understand: both perspectives are part of being human. The challenge -- and the absurdity -- arises from the need to simultaneously grasp the individual and the universal; the personal and the impersonal; the intimate and the public.

Here's an excerpt that gives a flavor of what Nagel is speaking about.

Morality is a form of objective reengagement. It permits the objective assertion of subjective values to the extent this is compatible with the corresponding claims of others. It can take various forms, some of which I have discussed. 

All of them involve, to one degree or another, occupying a position far enough outside your own life to reduce the importance of the difference between yourself and other people, yet not so far outside that all human values vanish in a nihilistic blackout.

OK, those words aren't transparently clear.

Nagel, being a philosopher, often engages in philosophy-speak. However, his central thesis strikes me as indisputable. We are subjective beings who strive to see things as much as possible from an objective perspective when the situation demands it.

The situation of homelessness, for example. 

Here in Salem (Oregon), City officials are struggling to find an approach to this problem that is both compassionate and realistic. Homeless camps on both public and private land near Wallace Marine Park have been removed recently. A "sit-lie" ordinance that would prohibit sleeping/camping on sidewalks during the daytime is being considered. 

Two public forums on the ordinance have generated a lot of debate and discussion on social media. Advocates for homeless people see the ordinance as a heartless attack on vulnerable individuals who already are struggling mightily. Supporters of  businesses see the ordinance as a way to keep downtown welcoming to everyone.

Good arguments can be made on either side. 

This is especially true when individuals convey what it is like to be a homeless person or a business owner from their personal subjective point of view.

My heart goes out to someone who is forced to live outside through no fault of their own. My heart also goes out to someone trying to make a living from a retail store who sees customers going elsewhere because of homeless people and their belongings being so apparent on downtown sidewalks.

Today's homelessness debates remind me of my health policy work back when John Kitzhaber was president of the Oregon Senate. Kitzhaber, a physician, spoke forthrightly about the controversial subject of health care rationing. 

A 1990 Washington Post story, "Rationing Medical Care," told the story of Coby Howard.

A blunt kind of medical rationing began three years ago in Oregon.

It started a movement that could sweep the country.

In July 1987, trying to stretch dollars for care of poor Medicaid patients, Oregon legislators voted to stop funding many organ transplants -- cost, $65,000 to $250,000 apiece. They voted, instead, to use the money to give basic health services to 400 more women and 1,800 children.

Four months later, a 7-year-old boy with leukemia, Coby Howard, was denied a $100,000 bone-marrow transplant and died.

Told to "smile big," he had stood before TV cameras to help raise $60,000 toward the operation. But by the time a medical center agreed to accept that sum for the surgery -- the transplant that might or might not have saved his life -- he was too sick for it.

Coby Howard was a victim, the media told the public, of health care rationing. And he became a symbol of an emerging era in which Americans, like it or not, must face the fact that no government, no employer, no insurer, no individual can afford to pay for everything medicine can do.

This was a collision of the subjective and the objective, the emotional empathy felt toward a boy needing a bone-marrow transplant and the stark reality that if limited public money was spent on the transplant, others would go without basic medical care such as prenatal services.

Homelessness and health care rationing obviously are different issues. Still, the difficult-to-bridge gap between our subjective feelings about an individual who needs help and the more objective nature of what Nagel calls the "view from nowhere" is still very much alive in today's debates over how to address homelessness.

I don't have an answer. My goal in this blog post is simply to talk about the issue from a perspective that, while philosophical, also is distinctly real. 

Ralph Crawshaw, a psychiatrist I worked with in my role as publicist, and then executive director, of Oregon Health Decisions (a bioethics organization), liked to say, "Society must decide." He was speaking about health care rationing and death with dignity. The same holds true for homelessness.

I understand the passion of those who feel strongly about this issue, whether from the viewpoint of individuals lacking a home or the burden homeless people impose on others. Somehow we have to strive to listen to all viewpoints, recognizing that there isn't an easy way to come up with broadly acceptable policies in this area.

Life often is absurd, as Nagel correctly says. While living in, and as, this absurdity, we have to find ways of moving forward in as clear-sighted a manner as possible.