Just when I thought the wanton destruction of four valuable street trees by Daniel and Richard Gatti couldn't be more outrageous, it turns out I was wrong.
Because Michael Slater reported in a Salem Tree Advocates post on Facebook that the City of Salem's Public Works Director, Peter Fernandez, has admitted that he hasn't been requiring people who improperly remove street trees to pay for the full assessed value of the trees, as is required by a city ordinance, SRC 86.105(c).
l heartily agree both with Jim Scheppke's comment above, plus a post that Scheppke wrote on the Facebook page where Salem City Council goings-on are discussed.
lt sure does smack of favoritism. Richard Gatti has admitted that he knew he needed to get a permit before trimming the street trees on his property that borders Liberty and Superior streets. (See here and here.) Further, Gatti didn't use a licensed tree service, and he failed to tell the contractor how the trees should be trimmed.
So the Gatti brothers knowingly destroyed four street trees that could have a total value of tens of thousands of dollars. Yet Peter Fernandez is OK with not complying with the city ordinance, shown below, that requires Daniel and Richard Gatti to pay the full appraised value of the trees that were damaged, in addition to a fine. (Boldface added for emphasis.)
Costs of restoration. Persons violating this chapter, or a permit issued hereunder, shall be responsible for restoring damaged areas in conformance with a plan approved by the Director that provides for repair of any environmental or property damage and restoration of the site. Costs of restoration shall be not less than those determined equal to the monetary value of the regulated trees removed in violation of this chapter, or permit issued hereunder, as set forth in an appraisal acceptable to the Director and based upon applicable administrative rules. Each removal of a regulated tree in violation of this chapter shall result in a separate civil fine in addition to costs of restoration.
Sure, the City Council can indeed look into modifying this portion of the tree ordinance. But it can't roll back the clock and pretend that the ordinance didn't exist when the Gatti brothers decided to ignore it and top the four trees, which is one of the worst things that can be done to a tree.
Mangled Gatti tree on Liberty Street
City Manager Steve Powers needs to overrule Peter Fernandez' outrageous decision to not enforce the city's tree ordinance and let the Gatti brothers off the hook for their willful destruction of four valuable street trees.
This, of course, is the same Peter Fernandez who made a backroom deal with Ryan Allbritton, the U.S. Bank president, to destroy five large, beautiful, healthy trees on downtown's State Street for no good reason. I was so disturbed by that travesty, I wrote a report about it, "Outrage: the true story of Salem's U.S. Bank tree killings."
To my knowledge, Fernandez never was disciplined for the shoddy way he acted back in 2013. And here he is again, looking the other way while other well-known "pillars of the community" knowingly destroy street trees. Why Fernandez still has his position is beyond me, because he sure is doing a crappy job at it.
Other than the continued piling on, I am not convinced the these trees were "destroyed".
I hope that the Gatti's obtain second and third opinion from expert arborists.
At least, "global warming" won't be to blame for these tree problems.........
Posted by: Skyline | February 02, 2020 at 12:11 AM
OMG, trees grow back unless the ROOTS OR THE TRUNKS ARE DAMAGED. Get over yourselves. Wait until Spring and the trees will look different. You just want attorneys to pay. Grow up.
Posted by: J. Miller | February 02, 2020 at 09:03 AM
Skyline and J. Miller -- your ignorance of the Salem Revised Code is showing.
SRC 86.010
"Tree removal means to cut down a tree, or remove more than 30 percent of the crown, circumference of the bark down to the heartwood, or root system of a tree, or to damage a tree in any manner so as to cause the tree to decline, become unstable, or die."
Why does the SRC define removing "more than 30 percent of the crown" as "tree removal?" Because a certified arborist will tell you that it kills the tree. The Gatti brothers killed four mature trees that have probably been there for a half century or more -- and they belonged to you and me, not to them. They need to be held accountable and pay for the value of the four trees that they destroyed, which is what the Salem Revised Code also says they must do.The law is the law. No one should be above the law.
Posted by: Jim Scheppke | February 02, 2020 at 09:22 AM
Jim Scheppke; are you a certified arborist?
No.
If you carefully and s l o w l y read my comment, I said:
"I hope that the Gatti's obtain second and third opinion from expert arborists."
I know that reading comprehension is on the decline these days....
Posted by: Skyline | February 03, 2020 at 08:36 AM
Looks like someone better run down to the Oregon Supreme Court building FAST!
OOPS!!! Too late. Nothing but stumps left:
https://www.statesmanjournal.com/picture-gallery/news/2020/02/03/photos-whats-going-oregon-supreme-court-building/4628256002/
Posted by: Skyline | February 03, 2020 at 08:41 AM
Skyline, you need to s l o w l y read the Salem Revised Code that I cited. It says that when a tree is topped by 30% or more that it constitutes "removal." And tree removal, under the SRC, requires payment of a fine AND payment for the appraised value of the trees. The Gatti brothers can hire all the arborists they want and it won't change their guilt and their obligation to pay the full cost for their misdeeds.
Posted by: Jim Scheppke | February 03, 2020 at 10:06 AM
Jim Scheppke, so now you're an attorney as well?
No?
Who do we know that ARE attorneys?
The Gatti's are attorneys, aren't they?
They did say that they intend to appeal the citation.
When the attorneys and judge ( not librarians or farmers) argue and decide the intent and application of the law in this case, we will have an outcome.
Not mentioned anywhere is the fact that 29.98% of the trees were removed, NOT 30% as was accused.
Then, with the expert testimony of certified arborists for a rehabilitation program for the trees, it may be "case closed".
"No one is above the law". Where oh where did you hear that?
Sounds like something from an old Andy of Mayberry rerun...
Posted by: Skyline | February 03, 2020 at 11:15 AM
Skyline raises a humorous point which could lead to some interesting courtroom disputes. It would be difficult to determine the exact percentage of each tree that was removed. A leaf here and a twig there could change everything.
Posted by: tucson | February 04, 2020 at 05:32 PM
"Skyline raises a humorous point..."
Well thank you, tucson.
But I'll tell you what IS NOT so humorous:
The "lynch-mob" mentality welling up toward a fine, upstanding family and business after a tragic mistake. "Crucify, crucify, crucify!!!!!"
Sad. REALLY sad.
And I still have not read about, or seen pictures of the belly-achers out there with their tape measure, or of them standing at the scales verifying the scale of their HATEFUL accusations.
It was a regrettable mistake set in motion with apparent lack of oversight in my opinion.
Nobody perfect around here.
Again; thank you tucson. Glad to see someone with a positive thought.
Posted by: skyline | February 05, 2020 at 07:17 PM