Salem Political Snark

Illegal signs have a Facebook fan. Will litter boosters follow?

I'm confident that most people in Salem consider illegal signs in the public right of way to be the abomination that they are. Ugly. Irritating. Trashy. Disrespectful of public property. 

But after Salem Community Vision -- a group dedicated to improving the livability and vitality of our town -- praised the City Council for making a stronger commitment  to remove illegally placed temporary signs, and warned that Kelly's Home Center once again may be visually polluting Salem with lots of illegal signs this Labor Day weekend, some lovers of those signs popped up on Facebook.

Notably, Ashlee Bell Wright, who posted a curious event: "Stop Salem Community Vision from Targeting Small Businesses." Here's the gist of what Wright is bothered about. She said:

They [Salem Community Vision] have shown up to every city council meeting to voice their complaints, mind you, there are only THREE Salem citizens on this board, and they're trying to represent the community's majority opinion. They're trying to get the city to start enforcing a stricter sign code: every quarter, city workers will canvas the city and force ANY small business found in "violation" can be ticketed and their signs will be confiscated. They've started to target Kelly's Furniture store, local downtown food businesses who use sand which boards, and medical marijuana sites. 

This affects all of us. Our local small businesses need to put signs out to get their business. Many small businesses are not known by tourists, have just opened and are trying to gather regular customers, or are simply trying to promote business. In addition, our tax dollars will be put to fruitless use. Would you rather this money go to pay for new infrastructure or city parks, or to enforce a sign code violation that will clog up council meetings and enrage a large part of our community. SCV's page has been flooded by our Salem community with voices of disagreement, and a page that preaches about sharing the "vision of our community" has NOT been listening.

Wow. There's so much wrong here. As a member of the Salem Community Vision (SCV) steering committee, let me count some of the ways:

(1) Small thing, but actually four out of six SCV committee members live in Salem. I have a Salem address outside the city limits. Another member lives in Silverton. And about a thousand people have "liked" the SCV Facebook page, so we have many supporters.

(2) Geting rid of ugly illegal signs has been a long-term commitment of Salem Community Vision, not a recent cause. Several years ago we publicized our project, "End the blight of temporary signs in the public right-of way."

Hundreds of signs in the public rights-of-way in Salem are a form of visual pollution that degrades our city and sends a message to visitors and people who might like to relocate here that we don't care about our streetscapes. These illegal signs (along with an overabundance of legal signs allowed by Salem's too-permissive sign ordinances) make streets like Lancaster, Liberty, Commercial and Market Street look tacky and trashy. Since these are major arterials, these streets leave a terrible impression that scenic parts of our city, like our historic downtown or the Capitol Mall area, cannot erase.

(3) The fact that Salem has an longstanding ordinance that bans temporary signs in the public right of way is a pretty good, um, sign that this reflects a majority citizen view. So does the fact that, as mentioned above, the City Council has recently called on City staff to enforce that ordinance more strongly.

(4) So it isn't Salem Community Vision that is targeting businesses who use public property for a private advertising purpose. Rather, SCV is simply asking the City of Salem to enforce the ordinance that bans temporary signs in the public right-of-way. We're not anti-business. We're anti-illegal signs. Businesses like Kelly's are just a major offender of the sign ordinance.

Here's what I told Wright in a comment on one of her Facebook postings where she said, in part:

Hey y'all, Salem Community vision is back at it again, this time targeting local businesses like Kelly's Furniture Store. Our local business have made our city thrive, and SCV has recently managed to convince the City Council to fine and confiscate businesses that have signs that "violate sign code". This will affect our small businesses, as well as fruitlessly use our tax dollars.

I replied with:

Why do you have "violate sign code" in quotation marks? Kelly's really is violating the Salem sign code. If you don't like what I and others in Salem Community Vision are doing -- getting people to comply with the City of Salem sign ordinance -- you should focus on getting the ordinance changed to allow signs in the public right of way, Good luck with that, by the way, because this would be very unpopular among both citizens and a clear majority of the City Council.

Wright is asking people to come to the September 11 City Council meeting and urge that illegal signs in the public right of way be allowed to stay up.

Like I said, good luck with that.

I'm confident that most Salemians don't want our town to become Trashy Sign City USA. As Kathleen Hill cogently testified at a recent City Council meeting, these days there are many better ways for businesses to advertise and make their existence known to prospective customers. 

Such as, Facebook and other social media. Providing excellent services at a reasonable cost. Word of mouth spread by satisfied customers. Have a look and listen.

Lastly, I wonder what other undesirable activities currently banned by a city ordinance might attract boosters. Here's one that comes to mind.

"Stop the City of Salem from targeting litterbugs! Everybody has a right to dispose of trash wherever they want, like the sidewalk!"

City Council elections count. Time to kill the Third Bridge.

Hypocrisy. We're all prone to it.

But conservatives in Salem sure seem to be more hypocritical than progressives -- especially when it comes to the most controversial local political issue in this town, the Salem River Crossing or Third Bridge.

I don't recall any of my progressive friends calling into question the legitimacy of a long string of pro-Third Bridge votes by the Salem City Council back when conservatives were in power.

And I sure don't remember any members of that right-leaning council majority saying that even though one of their campaign positions was to build a Third Bridge, this really doesn't mean much, so maybe their constituents really want them to vote against constructing the billion dollar boondoggle known as the Salem River Crossing.

Yet now that progressives have a 5-4 majority on the City Council, and all five campaigned with a pledge to stop the madness of pressing ahead with an unneeded, unwanted, and unpaid-for Third Bridge, suddenly conservatives in this town are claiming that the five progressive councilors don't really have a mandate to kill the Salem River Crossing.

Well, they sure do, in exactly the same way the previous conservative council majority was able to press ahead with the Third Bridge.

Elections have consequences. An excellent Salem Weekly editorial, "Time to end the Salem River Crossing project," speaks the truth to bridge advocates who suddenly don't believe that campaign promises count for anything.

In May of last year three new City Councilors were elected [Cara Kaser, Sally Cook, Matt Ausec], all of whom ran on a platform opposed to moving forward to complete planning on the 3rd Bridge. The three would take office in January, joining long-time 3rd Bridge opponent Tom Andersen.

...And they were joined in March by yet another anti-bridge Councilor, Chris Hoy, who defeated pro-bridge Gregg Peterson and two other candidates to replace pro-Bridge Daniel Benjamin who had resigned his seat in November. That makes a five-member Council majority opposed to the Salem River Crossing Project. They already flexed their muscles in April when they voted down an agreement with the Department of Land Conservation and Development that would have moved the project forward.

So now it’s time for enlightened leadership to end an ill-conceived and badly managed planning project that has dragged on for 11 years at a cost of nearly $8 million for consultants alone, not to mention the hundreds of hours of staff time and Council time that have kept a bad idea alive.

Everyone should respect the fact that the last five candidates elected to the Salem City Council ran against the 3rd Bridge. All of them defeated candidates who were for the 3rd Bridge. Elections should have consequences. The majority in five of the eight wards in Salem showed by electing these Councilors that they are not in favor of a 3rd Bridge.

It’s time for all of the City Councilors and the Mayor to hear the voice of the majority and bring this sad chapter in Salem’s history to a close.

There's a newly formed Salem Bridge Solutions group that seems to believe that if they all wear their green "Build It Now" shirts to enough community meetings, and act like thugs when they don't get their way, that's reason enough to construct a Third Bridge.

They forget that when progressives found themselves on the short end of a City Council majority, they worked their butts off to win five council elections in a row and regain the power to decide City of Salem priorities.

Conservative bridge advocates now can try to do the same thing.

If they believe that Salem voters are excited about paying a $1.50 each-way toll on a Third Bridge and the two existing bridges, along with having a local gas tax and higher vehicle registration fees imposed to pay for the bridge, then they should find people to run for the City Council who support these unpopular policies.

Or, as a comment on a Salem Weekly Facebook post about the Third Bridge says, bridge advocates could collect signatures to put a city-wide initiative on the ballot. 

Anyone who wants to collect signatures and put a local initiative on the ballot for the 3rd Bridge is welcome to do so. If the measure is honest and talks about the necessity of tolls, new fees and taxes to pay for it, it will get creamed.

I agree.

The official funding strategy for the Third Bridge says that $1.50 each-way tolling on both the new bridge and current bridge would be the main source of money for it. Most people in Salem don't want to pay three bucks to go back and forth across the river.

This inconvenient truth isn't mentioned by the Build It Now folks -- who never have explained how it would be possible to quickly build a half billion dollar bridge (about a billion with financing costs included) when there's no money for it.

Plus, it would be hugely less expensive to deal with rush-hour congestion on the two current bridges in other ways that have been clearly documented by the No 3rd Bridge folks who now have the upper hand.

Here's another excerpt from the Salem Weekly editorial. 

Once that is done [ending the Salem River Crossing project], we’ll need the Council’s leadership to move on and pursue more realistic and affordable solutions to our peak hour traffic congestion problems downtown and in West Salem.

Two opportunities present themselves with the passage of the transportation package by the Legislature just a few weeks ago. The package not only includes significant new funding for Cherriots, it includes funding for a seismic retrofit and possible other design improvements to the Center Street Bridge.

Our City Council needs to now focus on those two opportunities, along with other potential solutions, after they pull the plug on the 3rd Bridge.

"Illegal signs are trash." Which is why they make Salem look trashy.

There was a lot of discussion about illegal temporary signs in the public right-of-way at last night's City Council meeting. Here's some great testimony by Kathleen Hill on changes to the City of Salem sign ordinance that go in the wrong direction when it comes to illegal signs.

(See my previous post, "City Council needs to enforce ban against temporary signs in public right of way.")

As Hill said, signs left on utility poles or stuck in the ground on the public right of way between sidewalk and street are indeed trash. And they make Salem look trashy, unappealing to visitors and people thinking of moving here.

Councilor Cara Kaser picked up on Hill's comment, wondering why, if it would be legal to throw away a Big Gulp container left in the public right of way, it isn't OK to throw away an illegal sign left in the right of way.

City Attorney Dan Atchison responded to Kaser, saying that state law treats these signs as abandoned property, so if an illegal sign is removed, some effort must be made to find the owner.

This seems ridiculous to me.

But laws often don't make sense, so I'll bow to the City Attorney's legal knowledge (even though I've happily thrown away some illegal signs placed on utility poles and felt good doing so). City staff have said that it is perfectly fine to take down illegal signs and lay them on the ground, so everybody in Salem who dislikes illegal signs should do this when you come across one.

City staff admitted that no fines are being levied against individuals and businesses who shamelessly litter Salem with their illegal signs. Amazingly, supposedly someone placing an illegal sign has to be caught in the act -- even though it sure seems like a Kelly's sign advertising a sale is a pretty damn good clue as to who put it in the public right of way.

Fortunately, action on the proposed revisions to the sign ordinance was put off for two weeks, until the August 28 City Council meeting. Between now and then, city councilors who are concerned about the lack of enforcement against illegal temporary signs will be able to consult with staff on ways to deal with the problem.

I didn't attend last night's City Council meeting, watching parts of it being streamed on CCTV. I did watch most of the sign ordinance discussion. It was encouraging that quite a few people, some representing neighborhood associations, testified about how something needs to be done about temporary illegal signs. 

Googling this issue, I learned a few things about how some other Oregon cities handle the problem. Sherwood only allows signs in the public right of way during weekend hours.

Between 6:00 AM on Friday to 6:00 PM on Sunday, ONLY portable signs 18 inches X 24 inches or smaller  or A-Frame signs no taller than 4 feet and no greater than 7 square feet are permitted in the right of way.

This seems like a good idea. Someone having a garage sale, for example, can put out a sign from Friday evening to Sunday evening. Any signs in the public right of way at other times are illegal. 

And Tualatin has a Temporary Signs web page. Here's what it says about a citizen's ability to remove illegal signs.

Can I remove signs at intersection or on utility poles?
Yes a resident can remove stake signs from the major intersections and signs attached to poles and street signs. Removed signs can be placed face down in the nearby landscaping and will be picked up during regular maintenance.

Tualatin also has a brochure on this subject. Here's a screenshot of what is legal and illegal. 

Clearly the City of Salem should be doing a lot more to enforce its ban on temporary signs in the public right of way. I recall that City staff said that their not-good-enough idea is to have city employees run around quarterly in a pickup, collecting illegal signs. 

Well, this is better than nothing, but not much better. 

There needs to be a continuous ongoing effort to remove illegal signs. This shouldn't rely solely on volunteers. Individuals and businesses who leave sign trash in the right of way need to know that almost as soon as a sign is put up, it will be taken down. Fines also need to be imposed on repeat lawbreakers such as Kelly's. 

Hopefully the City Council will come up with ways to strengthen the current ban on temporary signs in the public right of way, which isn't being enforced.

The public outcry against these signs at last night's meeting was a pleasing sign (and a legal one) that people in Salem are mad as hell about the proliferation of illegal signs and don't want to take it anymore.

City Council needs to enforce ban against temporary signs in public right of way

With all the problems in our country (and the world) right now, I understand why some people feel it is wrong to get upset about the many illegal signs littering the public right of way in Salem. 

OK, I understand. But I heartily disagree that this isn't important. It is!

Salem's quality of life -- along with our ability to project a positive image to visitors and people/businesses who might want to move here -- is diminished when illegal signs proliferate along our streets, making this town look like a perpetual garage sale.

Lots of the signs are placed by businesses such as Kelly's Home Furnishings. Kelly's periodically puts dozens on signs on the public right of way, getting free advertising at the public's expense. See: "Take down those illegal signs, Kelly's (and other Salem sign scofflaws)."

The current City of Salem sign ordinance requires that someone wanting to put a temporary sign in the public right of way get approval from City officials if the sign is within the city limits. 

But revisions to the sign ordinance up for review at tomorrow's City Council meeting do away with the need for this approval, since the proposed revised ordinance eliminates SRC 900.100.  The prohibition on temporary signs in the public right of way remains, though.

Well, this doesn't seem like progress.

As several neighborhood associations and individuals concerned about illegal signs noted in comments on the revised ordinance, doing away with the need to get approval for temporary signs in the public right of way sends the message, "Hey, go ahead and place your illegal signs. No permit required now!"

Here's some of the comments:

Northeast Neighbors neighborhood association

              ...
             

Evan White

South Central Association of Neighbors

Thus rather than enforcing the prohibition of signs in the public right of way, the City of Salem wants to make it easier to place these signs by doing away with the current requirement to get approval for such signs. Apparently the rationale is that few people are doing the right thing and requesting approval, so why not allow anyone to easily put up illegal signs? 

I can think of several reasons. 

(1) Requiring approval for temporary signs opens the door to charging a fee for such a permit. Why should Kelly's and other businesses be allowed to use the public right of way for free advertising? If Kelly's wants to put up dozens of signs advertising a sale, then Kelly's should have to pay for this privilege. 

(2) Having a fee schedule for permits to place temporary signs in the right of way would generate income that could be used to pay for a Code Enforcement person to manage the proliferation of such signs. Currently the City of Salem says it doesn't have the money to fund this position. Yet the City isn't taking any steps to generate fees from temporary sign permits -- and now is going further backwards by doing away with the requirement to get approval to put temporary signs in the public right of way,

(3) Eliminating the possibility of getting approval for a temporary sign in the public right of way via the current 900.100 means that there is no way -- none, nada, zilch -- any such sign should be in the public right of way at any time. But there is no indication that the City of Salem intends to enforce this absolute prohibition should the revised sign ordinance be approved.

Meaning, it would be one thing if the City of Salem was eliminating the possibility of getting approval for signs in the public right of way because it intends to crack down hard on sign scofflaws. However, if this is the case, City officials need to make that explicit at tomorrow's City Council meeting, explaining how they are now going to enforce an ordinance that prohibits signs in the public right of way -- now without any way to get approval to go around this prohibition.

The staff report on the proposed sign ordinance changes is confusing in this regard. It says that most illegal signs in the public right of way don't require a permit.

I don't understand this. 

Both the current and proposed sign ordinances say "no temporary sign should be installed in or project over public right of way." There is no exemption for certain types of signs, such of those mentioned above (lawn signs, rigid signs, A-Frame signs). So along with the neighborhood associations, I'm perplexed by the staff report's contention that those sorts of temporary signs don't require approval under the current sign ordinance.

It sure looks like the intent of the proposed change is to make it easier for people and businesses to place temporary signs in the public right of way without having to worry about getting a permit or paying a fine. Like I said, this would be a big step backward for Salem -- which should be working to eliminate the plethora of illegal signs rather than encouraging them.

I'll end by noting that when I visit a town that doesn't allow temporary signs in the public right of way, I'm always impressed by what a difference this makes. 

For example, my wife and I frequently visit Sisters, Oregon. The town has strict zoning/appearance rules, obviously, because the commercial area looks classy, tasteful, attractive, and temporary sign-free. Ditto with where my daughter lives, Laguna Niguel, California. 

Somehow both towns get along fine without temporary signs in the public right of way. In fact, both towns appear to be prospering without them.

Our City officials need to grasp that both quality of life and economic development flow from making a town a desirable place to live and work in. It is short-sighted to believe that allowing tacky visual sign pollution is a good thing for Salem. 

Legal ruling deals the Third Bridge a huge setback

This is a great day for Salem. The billion dollar boondoggle known as the Salem River Crossing (or Third Bridge) got a big defeat in a ruling by the Land Use Board of Appeals.

Congratulations to the eight petitioners and E.M. Easterly, who joined in their appeal. Also, kudos to Salem attorney John Gear who argued the appeal.

I haven't read the ruling yet, as LUBA hasn't released it to the public. (The image above came from a No 3rd Bridge Facebook post.)

UPDATE: I now have a copy of the ruling. A quick look-through shows that LUBA rejected most of the "assignments of error" put forward by opponents of the bridge. But the important thing is that the Urban Growth Boundary expansion decision has been remanded (sent back) to the Salem City Council. Practically and politically speaking, the reasons LUBA gave for doing this don't matter a whole lot. Read on to understand why. Here's the ruling:
Download 2016-126 Final Opinion

But the fact that the City of Salem's approval of an Urban Growth Boundary expansion needed for construction of the bridge is now deeply in doubt means that the Third Bridge, if not dead, is critically wounded. 

Here's how the No 3rd Bridge folks explained the impact of today's legal decision in their Facebook post.

PETITIONERS WIN AT LUBA
Today, in the case of Deumling vs. City of Salem, the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals remanded the land use actions taken by the Salem City Council last December to advance the Salem River Crossing Project. That means the actions are invalidated and the City needs to start over again and correct deficiencies identified by LUBA. Until they do this, the Salem River Crossing Project cannot move forward to a Final Environmental Impact Statement.

Last December the land use actions were taken by the “old” City Council with Mayor Anna Peterson and a strong pro-bridge majority. In January three new Councilors who were all elected on an anti-bridge platform joined anti-bridge Councilor Tom Andersen on the Council. In March they were joined by Chris Hoy who also ran on an anti-bridge platform.

A few weeks later this five member Council majority voted against approving an intergovernmental agreement with the Department of Land Conservation and Development to advance the project. Now we are hopeful that the majority will stand firm against any effort to appeal the LUBA decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals, or to try to rectify the errors that LUBA found in the land use actions taken by the old Council in December, in order to try to restart the planning project.

LUBA concurred with three of the “assignments of error” presented by the petitioners and an intervenor, E. M. Easterly.

Our thanks to the eight petitioners and the intervenor, and to their attorney John Gear and to Bob Cortright and Kathy Lincoln who provided invaluable assistance. 

And here's a press release from No 3rd Bridge:

Land Use Board of Appeals Sends 3^rd Bridge Land Use Actions Back to City Council

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Salem, Oregon – Today the state Land Use Board of Appeals agreed with a group of citizen petitioners that the Salem City Council’s action last December to expand its urban growth boundary to permit construction of a bridge over the Willamette from Pine Street to Hope Avenue was not done properly and had to be sent back to the City of Salem. 

After considering the written and oral arguments made in Deumling vs. City of Salem (2016-0126), LUBA sustained a total of three objections to the City’s UGB expansion late last year. LUBA agreed with the petitioners on two of their objections to the urban growth boundary expansion decision, and also with one of the objections filed separately by a local resident who intervened in the case on the petitioners’ side in opposition to the UGB expansion.

The result of today’s LUBA’s decision is that Salem’s UGB is not expanded, and the decision is sent back, or “remanded,” which lets the Salem City Council decide whether to try it again or to change course and pursue other options for addressing the peak hour auto congestion problems.

Because LUBA remanded the land use decision, it is invalidated and the UGB remains unchanged. If the City Council decides to try again, the public process and hearings required for an urban growth boundary expansion would have to be repeated. Without the UGB expansion, the Salem River Crossing Project cannot proceed with the “Preferred Alternative,” because the Environmental Impact Statement for that project cannot be completed without the UGB being expanded first.

The eight citizen petitioners who brought the appeal are very pleased with the remand. They urge that Salem pursue a number of less-costly actions to address traffic congestion problems rather than try to repeat the UGB expansion process to accommodate the new bridge on the new route.

“The reality is that the third bridge just isn't a workable solution", said Robert Cortright, spokesperson for the petitioners. "We can't afford it, it won't solve our traffic congestion problems, and it would devastate parks and neighborhoods."

Petitioners urge the City of Salem to focus on improving traffic flow during peak hours by taking advantage of the funds provided in the recent state transportation funding bill, which increased funding for Cherriots and provided initial funds to seismically retrofit and improve the Center Street Bridge. There are many other viable solutions to address the flow of traffic over Salem's two car bridges. The City Council should begin the process to explore these workable options.

Beautiful bigleaf maple damaged by another City of Salem screwup

I've been blogging about the City of Salem's War on Trees ever since City officials engaged in unethical backroom dealmaking so five gorgeous Japanese Zelkovas on downtown's State Street -- a.k.a. the U.S. Bank trees -- could be cut down for no good reason in 2013. 

In 2014 I wrote:

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.

Photo I took today of the tree

So when I heard that the large bigleaf maple on the corner of Liberty and Mission (just south of the Library) was going to be allowed to be removed by the City of Salem in the course of new construction on that lot, naturally I thought here we go again. 

That thought was based on a conversation I had with an arborist who said the tree didn't need to be removed, but the City's Urban Forester, Jan Staszewski, was going to sign off on this anyway.

I happened to attend a South Central Association of Neighbors (SCAN) meeting where the issue of the bigleaf maple came up. Even though I was just a guest, I couldn't resist telling a representative of the contractor, "You need to get a second opinion about the tree, because the City of Salem is prone to allow trees to be cut down that don't need to be."

Fortunately, City Councilor Tom Andersen (who represents this part of town) apparently took the initiative to do just that, since today I got a copy of an email from a SCAN representative with the subject line "Thank you Councilor Andersen." 

The email said that the application to remove the bigleaf maple had been withdrawn after a second opinion on the health of the tree was provided by an independent arborist from Lake Oswego. Here's the arborist's report:
Download 17-07-25 854 Liberty Street SE Tree Risk Assessment

The arborist, Suzie Spencer, found that the tree has problems and risks. But they can be mitigated. 

What I found most irritating about Spencer's report were these two statements:

(1) "Excavation occurred approximately 11-feet from the tree’s trunk to the east running north to south; the structure is 14-feet 6-inches from the same point. On the west side of the tree, a new sidewalk has been constructed 5- feet and 5-inches from the west trunk surface. The sidewalk is curved to match the curvature of the tree’s root system. A construction company representative indicated the excavation was complete at the time of our visit. He recalled the tree had tree protection, the project arborist was on site during excavation, and that no major roots were encountered."

(2) "On the cut bank of the excavated area, east of the tree, three feet from the foundation is a large, 12-inch diameter severed major structural root, with several smaller cut roots around it. The root had some decay with 75-percent of the circumference intact with live wood (see Appendix 3, Figures 4, 5, and 6)."

So actually the tree was damaged during construction. Either City officials gave permission for this to happen, or City officials turned a blind eye to the cutting of a major 12-inch structural root. Here's some screenshots of photos from Spencer's report.

This tree was damaged on purpose, pretty clearly. The construction crew compacted the ground close to the tree. They cut a major 12-inch root. And City officials seemingly stood by, allowing this to happen.

I've heard stories from local arborists that this happens frequently. If a developer wants a healthy tree removed, construction equipment just happens to damage it to such an extent the City of Salem's Urban Forester then says, "This tree can't be saved; you can cut it down."

In this case, City Hall is just a block away from the construction site. And still the contractor felt free to compact the soil and cut a major root. 

If Councilor Andersen hadn't stepped in and apparently pressured City officials to get a second opinion on the tree, it would be a goner by now. Like I said, there's plenty of evidence that the City of Salem bends over backwards to allow developers to remove trees that should be saved.

Hopefully lessons will be learned from this near-debacle. 

A second opinion from an arborist outside of Salem always should be gotten when a significant tree is slated to be cut down after getting permission from City officials. Salem's Urban Forester simply can't be trusted to do the right thing, given the political pressure to cave in to developer demands. 

And citizens need to be highly skeptical when they hear from City officials that a tree needs to be removed because it poses a risk. Sometimes this is true. Sometimes it isn't. The City of Salem has a poor track record when it comes to caring for this town's trees. 

Until that changes, people who love their neighborhood's urban canopy need to demand solid evidence from an independent arborist that a tree truly needs to be cut down. That allowed this beautiful bigleaf maple to be saved. Other trees deserve the same chance to survive.

I was right about the Salem Bridge Solutions disturbance. Gator Gaynor was wrong.

Ah, it always feels so good to be proven correct about a local issue I blogged about.

Especially when  a local conservative talk show host, KYKN's Gator Gaynor, criticized me for supposedly falsely claiming that a pro-Third Bridge group, Salem Bridge Solutions, had disrupted a recent meeting of the West Salem Neighborhood Association. 

After I wrote "Salem Bridge Solutions 'goon squad' roughs up West Salem NA meeting" and posted a link on a Salem City Council Facebook discussion page, Gaynor started up with his fake news! blather. 

Here's a screenshot of the comment interchange between Gaynor and me.

Well, what I pick is a third option... THE TRUTH. 

The current issue of Salem Weekly has a column by city councilor Tom Andersen about the West Salem Neighborhood Association meeting called "Urging Civility." 

Andersen, an attorney, wrote the piece after talking with seven people who were at the meeting, including Councilor Jim Lewis -- who represents West Salem. The column backs up what I said in my blog post, which was based on two reports that were emailed to me from people who also attended the meeting.

Here's what Councilor Andersen said. As he notes, these thoughts were previously shared July 26 on his Facebook page. I doubt that Gator Gaynor will be apologizing to me, but I accept his unspoken apology regardless. Or are you going to call Councilors Andersen and Lewis liars also, Gator? 

Urging Civility

A week ago last Monday at the West Salem Neighborhood Association, there were a series of totally inappropriate vocal and physical disturbances instigated by folks who support a new bridge, based primarily on emotions without much critical analysis. It was very disturbing, especially in light of what is happening nationally. I commented on it at length at Monday’s council meeting. I spoke from written notes which are reproduced below. Sorry for the length (especially without pictures!) but this issue is important.

One of the functions of Salem neighborhood associations is to receive and discuss information concerning city projects and proposed projects and to inform the council of the NA’s positions on any given issue, including any differences of opinion. It is expected that any NA discussion shall be civil, respectful, and allow all sides to have their say. Unfortunately this did not happen at last week’s West Salem neighborhood’s meeting.

While I was not there, I have spoken to seven people who were, including Councilor Lewis. While some may disagree as to the rationale for and history behind the actions taken, all agree that the meeting was disruptive, disrespectful and totally antithetical to how neighbors should behave, much less how human beings should behave. The co-chairs of the NA were interrupted, shouted at, talked over, accused of bad faith, had the microphone taken away after the chair had declared the meeting adjourned, and accorded absolutely no respect or civility.

The instigators of the majority of this behavior were persons in favor of the proposed Salem River Crossing, a matter which was not even on the agenda at the meeting, except tangentially with respect to a motion contained in the minutes of the previous meeting. While the NA’s parliamentarian, in an attempt to keep order, did inappropriately shout “sit down” at the people who were disturbing the meeting, he appropriately apologized to them for his actions.

I am certain that the proponents have deep felt and sincere beliefs as to the necessity of the proposed bridge. I believe that they have every right to their beliefs and every right to discuss the situation in a respectful and civil manner. What happened at the meeting is not proper behavior; not behavior that anyone should be proud of, and not behavior that should be repeated in any setting. This is not the type of behavior which should be allowed to pass unnoticed. It must be stopped now.

People, in spite of our differences of opinions, we should all treat others as we would wish to be treated. All sides should discuss city issues on the merits of the issues themselves without resort to ad hominem and personal attacks.

Neighborhood Associations are a microcosm for the issues we face as a community.

• We are all a part of Salem. We are all neighbors.

• Whatever our views, we can agree to disagree.

• We will always strive to be civil in our conversations with our neighbors.

To that end, councilor Lewis and I will be appearing on CCTV later this week to urge people on all sides of any given issue to follow these guidelines and to discuss the high value that the Council places on civic discourse in our community.

Tom Anderson is a trial lawyer and has served as Ward 2 city councilor since January 2015. This text was originally posted on his Facebook page: Tom Andersen – A Progressive Voice for Salem